TalkLeft Discussion Forums

State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) => Witness Discussion => Topic started by: Screamin Jay on July 06, 2012, 10:52:49 AM

Title: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Screamin Jay on July 06, 2012, 10:52:49 AM
I'm looking for a clear copy of W8, DeeDee's phone interview with Benjamin Crump or a transcript of it. Also the long media presentation he made about that first interview. I remember watching it on YouTube but can't find it now.
I have found plenty about the Bernie de la Rhionda interviews. I'll have to go off that in this thread if you guys can't help.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Screamin Jay on July 07, 2012, 02:22:58 AM
This is an edited down version of W8's testimony:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Dee, Trayvon's friend in Miami
On the phone all day with Trayvon, but the phone was acting up. He was happy that day. Around six, sumpin’….; he was saying he was going to a corner store to get his little brother some food and some drink. She was conversing with him as he was walking to the store, at the store, and once he left the store.
When he was leaving the store, he just told me that he bought drinks. It about to rain.. He ran to the mail thing…like a shed… a covered area… he was already inside the gated place. That's when the phone hung up, and I called him back.
A couple minutes later this white man is watching him in a car. The man was on the phone. The man got problems…:and look at him crazy and creepy. So, Trayvon started walking. And then…the phone hung up. And I call him back again. 
He walkin’ and he said this man following him, behind the car. Trayvon, put his hoodie on cause, he said it was startin’ a little bit dripping water….He said this man is still watching him. Like in a car…so he about to run from the back. So then I told him, run to his Dad house.
So he say he about to run for the back cause its mo’ easier, he said.  So, next thing I hear, he gettin’ run. And I can hear that the wind blowin’…  So you could tell he was running at that time…
And…by the sound his voice kinda change… I know he was scared.  Voice was getting kind of low
So, in a couple minutes…he say the man followin’ him again, behin’ him. And I say, ‘RUN!’  Shouting, “Run, Run, Run!”  I was not yelling at him. You goin’ to run?  He say he not goin’ run cause he out of breath, tired, and he's right by his father house
It was not raining, cause I hear him OK.
 And then he told me like the guy was getting real close to him. Next I hear Trayvon saying, “Why you following me for? I hear this ol’ man was tired.  He breathin’ [mimicking a breathy tone], …say, ‘What you doin’ aroun’ here?’ in an angry voice ‘cause he said it like so deep.
And I call Trayvon…’Trayvon, what’s goin’ on, what's goin’ on?’…he didn’t answer. I hear a sound like “bump.”  You cou’ hear that Trayvon bump…somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass thing.  …I guess out of the speaker… She did not hear any kind of screamings like ‘Help me’ or anything like that. She did not hear any kind of shot. I could just hear like…the headphone…cause the headphones, he might got off. But I can still hear a little. Yeah, I could hear Trayvon a little bit…”get off…get off,”
And then…I was still screaming, I was saying, ‘Trayvon, Trayvon"…and next thing, the phone just shut off.
Dee Dee try calling back like 3 or 2 times. She tried to text him. No call back and no text from TM.
--------------------------------------------
My goal is to timeline the event using all witnesses, George and Frank. I removed lots of DeeDee's repetitions. You can't use this as exact. Feel free to respond with your knowledge of what she said and what you think she means. Right after Trayvon ran she says "I know he was scared.  Voice was getting kind of low." I wonder if the "low" was because he was hiding somewhere not far from the "T". Sounds like they went south. So, how did they get back north? Many things here to help me understand better.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on July 07, 2012, 04:42:55 AM
This is an edited down version of W8's testimony:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Dee, Trayvon's friend in Miami
On the phone all day with Trayvon, but the phone was acting up. He was happy that day. Around six, sumpin’….; he was saying he was going to a corner store to get his little brother some food and some drink. She was conversing with him as he was walking to the store, at the store, and once he left the store.
When he was leaving the store, he just told me that he bought drinks. It about to rain.. He ran to the mail thing…like a shed… a covered area… he was already inside the gated place. That's when the phone hung up, and I called him back.
A couple minutes later this white man is watching him in a car. The man was on the phone. The man got problems…:and look at him crazy and creepy. So, Trayvon started walking. And then…the phone hung up. And I call him back again. 
He walkin’ and he said this man following him, behind the car. Trayvon, put his hoodie on cause, he said it was startin’ a little bit dripping water….He said this man is still watching him. Like in a car…so he about to run from the back. So then I told him, run to his Dad house.
So he say he about to run for the back cause its mo’ easier, he said.  So, next thing I hear, he gettin’ run. And I can hear that the wind blowin’…  So you could tell he was running at that time…
And…by the sound his voice kinda change… I know he was scared.  Voice was getting kind of low
So, in a couple minutes…he say the man followin’ him again, behin’ him. And I say, ‘RUN!’  Shouting, “Run, Run, Run!”  I was not yelling at him. You goin’ to run?  He say he not goin’ run cause he out of breath, tired, and he's right by his father house
It was not raining, cause I hear him OK.
 And then he told me like the guy was getting real close to him. Next I hear Trayvon saying, “Why you following me for? I hear this ol’ man was tired.  He breathin’ [mimicking a breathy tone], …say, ‘What you doin’ aroun’ here?’ in an angry voice ‘cause he said it like so deep.
And I call Trayvon…’Trayvon, what’s goin’ on, what's goin’ on?’…he didn’t answer. I hear a sound like “bump.”  You cou’ hear that Trayvon bump…somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass thing.  …I guess out of the speaker… She did not hear any kind of screamings like ‘Help me’ or anything like that. She did not hear any kind of shot. I could just hear like…the headphone…cause the headphones, he might got off. But I can still hear a little. Yeah, I could hear Trayvon a little bit…”get off…get off,”
And then…I was still screaming, I was saying, ‘Trayvon, Trayvon"…and next thing, the phone just shut off.
Dee Dee try calling back like 3 or 2 times. She tried to text him. No call back and no text from TM.
--------------------------------------------
My goal is to timeline the event using all witnesses, George and Frank. I removed lots of DeeDee's repetitions. You can't use this as exact. Feel free to respond with your knowledge of what she said and what you think she means. Right after Trayvon ran she says "I know he was scared.  Voice was getting kind of low." I wonder if the "low" was because he was hiding somewhere not far from the "T". Sounds like they went south. So, how did they get back north? Many things here to help me understand better.

You might find this useful

http://whonoze.wordpress.com/2012/06/16/deedees-account/
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 07, 2012, 05:42:46 AM
You might find this useful

http://whonoze.wordpress.com/2012/06/16/deedees-account/

Thanks - this is an interesting perspective.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on July 07, 2012, 09:35:00 AM
This site has a breakdown with the authors transcription of the interview.  I can't say for certain that the transcript is 100% accurate, but from listening to the interview and reading this transcript, I haven't found any flaws.  The author of the blog puts in his two cents which you can ignore, but I think its important to look at the full transcript with the phrasing used by BDLR as well as complete responses to get the full picture.

http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-11-the-dee-dee-interview-kaboom/
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Screamin Jay on July 07, 2012, 10:26:37 AM
One word missing from the de la Rionda interview of W#8 is "cornered". DD used this word with Crump or on ABC TV at some point. The jist is that Trayvon felt cornered at some point somewhere. It may explain his need to tackle or punch (if he did!). I have two ideas on this so far.
1) the corner might have been the right angle formed by one of those white fences jutting out from the building. Serino suspected Trayvon hid from George. The safest home to hide by would be Brandi Green's but it's not clear he made it that far.
2) If there was a second person flushing Trayvon from the south, then he could have felt trapped (cornered) between the accomplice to the south and George to the north. Have you ever tried to play tag around a building? One person may never see the other. But if it's two looking for one, if one stays put the other easily flushes to object around to the other. It's sort of like using a hunting dog to flush out birds.
These two possibilities might have both happened at the same time.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on July 07, 2012, 11:12:05 AM
I think there is a third idea that is much easier to believe which is that Martin was never cornered and Dee Dee made it up.  ITs almost impossible to believe a young athletic kid could get cornered in such an open area by an "obese" out of shape man, given the witness testimony of where the words were first exchanged right around the T.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on July 07, 2012, 12:18:54 PM
I think there is a third idea that is much easier to believe which is that Martin was never cornered and Dee Dee made it up.  ITs almost impossible to believe a young athletic kid could get cornered in such an open area by an "obese" out of shape man, given the witness testimony of where the words were first exchanged right around the T.

I think it also possible that "cornered" was Crump's interpretation or exaggeration of what the young lady said, and not something she herself said.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 07, 2012, 12:26:29 PM
One word missing from the de la Rionda interview of W#8 is "cornered".

2) If there was a second person flushing Trayvon from the south, then he could have felt trapped (cornered) between the accomplice to the south and George to the north. Have you ever tried to play tag around a building? One person may never see the other. But if it's two looking for one, if one stays put the other easily flushes to object around to the other. It's sort of like using a hunting dog to flush out birds.
These two possibilities might have both happened at the same time.

Really? Was the second person flushing him from the south hiding behind the grassy knoll?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on July 07, 2012, 02:46:41 PM
Really? Was the second person flushing him from the south hiding behind the grassy knoll?

Yes, but he was still visible because he was wearing a white T-shirt.


(yes, I'm old enough to get the grassy knoll reference--and to wish there'd been a Zapruder there when the struggle started)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Aussie54 on July 08, 2012, 05:36:16 PM
I think there is a third idea that is much easier to believe which is that Martin was never cornered and Dee Dee made it up.  ITs almost impossible to believe a young athletic kid could get cornered in such an open area by an "obese" out of shape man, given the witness testimony of where the words were first exchanged right around the T.

My gut feel has always been that DeeDee has made up most of what is claimed to be her testimony. There are a lot of holes in what she claims.

My suspicion is that if GZ actually had a pre-existing condition, then it is highly unlikely that he caught up with TM... but that is just a suspicion and a gut feel on this matter.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 08, 2012, 06:12:55 PM
My gut feel has always been that DeeDee has made up most of what is claimed to be her testimony. There are a lot of holes in what she claims.

My suspicion is that if GZ actually had a pre-existing condition, then it is highly unlikely that he caught up with TM... but that is just a suspicion and a gut feel on this matter.

I love the way De la Rionda has to put words into DeeDee's mouth. I can't imagine that the state could conduct its portion of an SYG hearing without putting her on the stand. She seems to be more critical to the state's presumption of Zimmerman initiating the conflict ( if that was confronted means) than Zimmerman.

Its hard not to envision Omara's cross examination of her as a Burns and Allen show.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on July 08, 2012, 07:39:41 PM
...
Its hard not to envision Omara's cross examination of her as a Burns and Allen show.

I'll be sending you the invoice for that new keyboard.

But quit giving away our ages like that.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 08, 2012, 09:50:12 PM
Burns and who?  :)

Actually a bit before my time, but I had a college roommate who was an fan of 50's TV. Gracie and Allen  were great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at9S7NDT2-o&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at9S7NDT2-o&feature=related)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on July 09, 2012, 06:10:54 AM
Burns and who?  :)

Actually a bit before my time, but I had a college roommate who was an fan of 50's TV. Gracie and Allen  were great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at9S7NDT2-o&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at9S7NDT2-o&feature=related)

I figure Gracie's "stupid" act took a lot of smarts to pull off so brilliantly.

But, as a kid in the '50s, seeing George (Burns, not Zimmerman) go upstairs and turn on a TV set to watch the show that he was on, while talking to the audience about it,  to see what they were saying while he wasn't downstairs was just incredibly cool, and probably my first experience with tearing down the 4th wall AND science fiction.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on July 09, 2012, 07:08:09 AM
I posted this in another thread discussing evidence, but think it belongs better here.  This is not a full recap of her account, but I like to use this section of her testimony one, because it covers the relevant parts to confirm or rebuke Z's SYG claim and two because its about the only part of the interview where BDLR allows her to continue her story without interrupting with leading questions.  She begins with TM leaving the cover of the mailbox thingy and noticing Z watching/following him and after evaluating the situation for a few minutes is deciding to run.

- she tells TM to run to his dad's house (IF TM ran towards his dad's house, this would be the same direction Z witnesses him running towards the back entrance)
- she says he ran and lost the man (this also matches Z's statement that TM ran and the implication that he can no longer see him while presumably standing at the top of the T)
- she says TM is now out of breath (if he started running from the T and sprinted he would reach the back of BG's town home in maybe 10-15 seconds and if he was at a full sprint for that long, he'd be out of breath for maybe 30 seconds.)
- she says he was scared because he's breathing hard.  (this is the first point she mentions him being scared and its after he lost the guy.)
- she says he's now by his fathers house.  (makes sense as it wouldn't have taken him too long to run from the T or area where Z was parked to reach his fathers house)
- after a brief explanation that he ran "from the back" and reiteration that he's by his fathers house, she says he "started walking back".  (its absolutely amazing to me that BDLR doesn't ask for any clarification of this statement as she has said he ran from Z and got to his dads house and is now walking back.  So if Z was behind him coming towards his fathers house, how can he be walking back towards him and be followed/chased by Z at the same time?)
- she tells him to run, he says isn't going to because he's right by his fathers house.  (seems he doesn't feel the need to run as he can just go inside if he wants and he's already relayed that he lost the guy.)
- after a couple of minutes, he says the man is following behind him again, she tells him to run but he says he isn't going to run and she says he can't run cause he's still out of breath (now its possible this could still fit into a possible narrative if Z went around the front of the buildings and came back through one of the gaps to reacquire TM, but does it make any sense at all that TM ran to his dads house, is out of breath, but decides to start walking back towards the T but he's still so out of breath and breathing hard that he can't run again after a couple minute rest?  We are supposed to believe that, but the "obese" GZ is supposedly chasing after TM for a couple of minutes while on the NEN call and is talking plain as anything?   Is TM really going to walk back to the T away from his fathers house if hes that scared and out of breath that he's still huffing and puffing several minutes later?)
- she then goes into the exchange of words and about how GZ's voice is deep, angry and out of breath (doesn't seem to me to match the tone of his voice and how he was talking to the dispatcher, but I guess he could have made his voice sound mean when talking to TM.  Not sure how he made it deeper).

After she finishes her narrative, BDLR asks follow up questions trying to get details and it ends up getting very confusing about what happened when.  Overall, the part of the narrative I reference above from just before running to the two meeting and exchanging words, fits pretty well with the narrative Z tells.  The one discrepancy would be that TM tells her Z is following him again.  This part gets enhanced/modified a bit when BDLR tries to get more detail as in followup Dee Dee relays that TM says "he's right behind me" and begins to whisper, which is right before TM starts with the "why are you following me".   I think its safe to assume TM's whispering was to avoid being seen or found (depending on your narrative) and if he's whispering, its more likely than not that Z doesn't see him or know where he is. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 09, 2012, 09:48:20 AM
I posted this in another thread discussing evidence, but think it belongs better here.  This is not a full recap of her account, but I like to use this section of her testimony one, because it covers the relevant parts to confirm or rebuke Z's SYG claim and two because its about the only part of the interview where BDLR allows her to continue her story without interrupting with leading questions.  She begins with TM leaving the cover of the mailbox thingy and noticing Z watching/following him and after evaluating the situation for a few minutes is deciding to run.

- she tells TM to run to his dad's house (IF TM ran towards his dad's house, this would be the same direction Z witnesses him running towards the back entrance)
- she says he ran and lost the man (this also matches Z's statement that TM ran and the implication that he can no longer see him while presumably standing at the top of the T)
- she says TM is now out of breath (if he started running from the T and sprinted he would reach the back of BG's town home in maybe 10-15 seconds and if he was at a full sprint for that long, he'd be out of breath for maybe 30 seconds.)
- she says he was scared because he's breathing hard.  (this is the first point she mentions him being scared and its after he lost the guy.)
- she says he's now by his fathers house.  (makes sense as it wouldn't have taken him too long to run from the T or area where Z was parked to reach his fathers house)
- after a brief explanation that he ran "from the back" and reiteration that he's by his fathers house, she says he "started walking back".  (its absolutely amazing to me that BDLR doesn't ask for any clarification of this statement as she has said he ran from Z and got to his dads house and is now walking back.  So if Z was behind him coming towards his fathers house, how can he be walking back towards him and be followed/chased by Z at the same time?)
- she tells him to run, he says isn't going to because he's right by his fathers house.  (seems he doesn't feel the need to run as he can just go inside if he wants and he's already relayed that he lost the guy.)
- after a couple of minutes, he says the man is following behind him again, she tells him to run but he says he isn't going to run and she says he can't run cause he's still out of breath (now its possible this could still fit into a possible narrative if Z went around the front of the buildings and came back through one of the gaps to reacquire TM, but does it make any sense at all that TM ran to his dads house, is out of breath, but decides to start walking back towards the T but he's still so out of breath and breathing hard that he can't run again after a couple minute rest?  We are supposed to believe that, but the "obese" GZ is supposedly chasing after TM for a couple of minutes while on the NEN call and is talking plain as anything?   Is TM really going to walk back to the T away from his fathers house if hes that scared and out of breath that he's still huffing and puffing several minutes later?)
- she then goes into the exchange of words and about how GZ's voice is deep, angry and out of breath (doesn't seem to me to match the tone of his voice and how he was talking to the dispatcher, but I guess he could have made his voice sound mean when talking to TM.  Not sure how he made it deeper).

After she finishes her narrative, BDLR asks follow up questions trying to get details and it ends up getting very confusing about what happened when.  Overall, the part of the narrative I reference above from just before running to the two meeting and exchanging words, fits pretty well with the narrative Z tells.  The one discrepancy would be that TM tells her Z is following him again.  This part gets enhanced/modified a bit when BDLR tries to get more detail as in followup Dee Dee relays that TM says "he's right behind me" and begins to whisper, which is right before TM starts with the "why are you following me".   I think its safe to assume TM's whispering was to avoid being seen or found (depending on your narrative) and if he's whispering, its more likely than not that Z doesn't see him or know where he is.

Thanks for bringing this over into this thread.

The things that BdlR didn't ask her about, such as the passing of a couple of minutes, were things I don't believe he wanted the answers to.  IMO, of course, but if the State was trying to gather enough evidence to pursue the serious charge of Murder in the Second, De La Rionda needed her to say as much as she did to get it.  Crump most certainly knew what the State needed and I feel she was coached extensively.  If she had gone any further it would have been counterproductive.

Her version is just so sanitized that it begs for additional questioning.  I imagine that MOM will gain a lot of ground with Dee Dee on the stand.  Without her, the State loses its case.


I freely admit I am suspicious of anything that has been "Crumped" but the fact that this young woman, who was so very close to Trayvon Martin since kindergarten,  would not come forward on her own tells me that she didn't really want the entire conversation known to LE.  She would do that only if she thought she was protecting her friend, TM.

I also think that she talked to someone prior to the dates cited by Crump.  SPD asked for access to Trayvon's phone from Tracy Martin within a week of the shooting and he refused to do that without consulting his attorney, Crump.  That forced the State to pursue a Search Warrant, IIRC, and ate a valuable chunk of time.  I never understood why Tracy Martin wouldn't help in this part of the investigation.  He easily could have looked at his records online for calls made around the time of his son's death.

Again, just IMO.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on July 09, 2012, 11:16:16 AM
I recall reading an article (I think it was Radar online fwiw) that said Crump had talked to Dee Dee the day after TM's funeral.  Now they make this claim from a source "close to the family", but they do not name the source.   I recall the article said it was Crump that alerted her that she was the last one to talk to Trayvon before he was killed.  I haven't seen anyone else report this, but if this is true that Crump had already found  Dee Dee and talked to her, then that could be why Tracy wanted to consult with him prior granting them access to TM's phone records.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 10, 2012, 03:48:36 AM


I don't find DeeDee to be a credible witness. She has motive to lie and her story has holes in it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 10, 2012, 04:13:32 AM

I don't find DeeDee to be a credible witness. She has motive to lie and her story has holes in it.

Hmm.

I don't find George to be a credible witness. He has a motive to lie and his story has holes in it.

You can not refute either point. Note that I'm not saying that DeeDee is or isn't necessarily a 'credible' witness, but I hope you see my point.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 10, 2012, 06:41:59 AM
Hmm.

I don't find George to be a credible witness. He has a motive to lie and his story has holes in it.

You can not refute either point. Note that I'm not saying that DeeDee is or isn't necessarily a 'credible' witness, but I hope you see my point.

Of course, I don't consider anyone who has "skin in the game" and motive to lie that credible but DeeDee's testimony seems to be all the prosecution has and her story is flawed bigtime. I didn't mention Zimmerman's testimony because this thread isn't about that and I didn't want to stray off the topic.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 10, 2012, 06:57:09 AM
Of course, I don't consider anyone who has "skin in the game" and motive to lie that credible but DeeDee's testimony seems to be all the prosecution has and her story is flawed bigtime.

1) Actually, it's not all the prosecution has, and 2) by your thinking George isn't credible either. He has by far the biggest motive to lie of anyone involved in the case.

DeeDee's rather.....um, tenuous grasp of the English language suggests to me she would be a horrible witness regardless of her testimony. That her testimony is all over the place is only icing on the proverbial cake. I don't see how the state can -not- call her, but they'll do what they can to keep it very short and narrow in scope.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 10, 2012, 07:11:44 AM
1) Actually, it's not all the prosecution has, and 2) by your thinking George isn't credible either. He has by far the biggest motive to lie of anyone involved in the case.

DeeDee's rather.....um, tenuous grasp of the English language suggests to me she would be a horrible witness regardless of her testimony. That her testimony is all over the place is only icing on the proverbial cake. I don't see how the state can -not- call her, but they'll do what they can to keep it very short and narrow in scope.

I think I stated already that George would have motive to lie and in my opinion not very credible. I felt that way going in so it is no surprise his account isn't perfect. To stay on topic I am focusing on DeeDee's testimony which I find to be problematic as it is conflicting. I really don't see anything else of susbstance the prosecution has.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 10, 2012, 02:53:36 PM
I think DeeDee is a nightmare witness for both the prosecution and the defense. For the prosecution, she comes across as very....unsophisticated, is the nicest way I can say it, and to be blunt about it, I don't think it will play well to the jurors if the associate Trayvon with her. Given her poor English skills it's impossible to decipher what she may or may not mean, and if you have no idea what she's going to say on the stand, you can't put her on the stand.

The defense can't be all that happy about putting her on the stand either - you look like you're beating up on some unsophisticated kid (what is she, 16?) when the key takeaway will be 'she didn't see anything and couldn't really hear anything'. There's no real upside, and the last thing you want to do is have her go off on her 'I heard Trayvon say 'get off, get off' or something.

Since she's a minor, I suspect 'her parents don't want her to testify', (wink wink), and the two sides will agree to a statement that will be read in court, and will basically say not a whole lot of anything.

Re the whole 'walk back' thing - I thought we had already established that a) if George had no obligation to go back to his truck, neither does Martin. And if b) if George can be scared about saying his address out loud because Martin was near by, Martin can be scared about leading the crazy guy that's been following him the last five minutes, including chasing after him on foot, directly to his doorstep.

Either way, her testimony is unreliable as hell and I can't see anyway the prosecution calls her.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 10, 2012, 03:58:12 PM
I find pretty much all of DeeDee's testimony and how she was questioned...suspect, at best... I don't think any part of her testimony is reliable.
 

You now don't have any evidence about Treyvon's state of mind because you just threw DeeDee under the bus. You must agree the case should not have been brought. So where did you get the crazy man reference to Zimmerman?

Please produce some evidence that hasn't already been patiently and scientifically disproved by other commentators. ( Wind from running sound etc ) that shows that Zimmerman was chasing after Martin. Justify the word please. 

So you contend that Martin had just two choices lead Zimmerman ( who he had just put far behind himstance ) directly to his home or go confront him? Why do you think Martin was afraid? There are lots of reasons to run besides being afraid.

Can't think of any other options than going back and slugging Zimmerman. Go around to the front door. Move to public place? Call the cops or his parents?

.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 11, 2012, 01:51:22 AM
You now don't have any evidence about Treyvon's state of mind because you just threw DeeDee under the bus. You must agree the case should not have been brought. So where did you get the crazy man reference to Zimmerman?

Firstly, cite for the need to have any evidence of Trayvon's state of mind at the time?

Secondly, I most certainly do not agree that the case should not have been brought.

Thirdly, damn near every piece of 'evidence', including (particularly) the statements from George himself, are a damn sight short of being 'scientifically disproved'. Please produce one item of evidence, other than Martin being dead from a gunshot wound and George admitting he shot him, that is proof about -anything- George has said that night.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: AJ on July 11, 2012, 04:57:16 AM
Thirdly, damn near every piece of 'evidence', including (particularly) the statements from George himself, are a damn sight short of being 'scientifically disproved'. Please produce one item of evidence, other than Martin being dead from a gunshot wound and George admitting he shot him, that is proof about -anything- George has said that night.

They're a great distance away from being "scientifically disproved" - for one reason, you rely on words that do not exist (to further this example, as I've pointed out before, Mr. Zimmerman never said in the re-enactment when EXACTLY Mr. Martin walked by him.. was it before he was on the line with dispatch? Was it after? We don't know because he doesn't say. Yet you continually insist on your narrative that Mr. Zimmerman claims he was on the phone when Mr. Martin passed - this is not "scientific" it's speculation.) Another reason would be relying on definitions of words that are not definitions of the word (ie: "near" does not mean "at" and "at" does not mean "near").

Just because you're ignoring the evidence doesn't mean it's not there. Take, for example, the injuries to Mr. Zimmerman - keep in mind that he didn't need injuries to claim SYG/Self-defense.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 11, 2012, 05:40:41 AM
Mr. Zimmerman never said in the re-enactment when EXACTLY Mr. Martin walked by him.. was it before he was on the line with dispatch? Was it after? We don't know because he doesn't say. Yet you continually insist on your narrative that Mr. Zimmerman claims he was on the phone when Mr. Martin passed - this is not "scientific" it's speculation.) Another reason would be relying on definitions of words that are not definitions of the word (ie: "near" does not mean "at" and "at" does not mean "near").
Yes he does. He says specifically that he a) drove past Martin, b) dialed the non-emergency dispatch, and c) when his call went through he parked at the Clubhouse.

He's clear about this because he even says 'they asked me where I was, and I said the Clubhouse and gave them the address for the Clubhouse'.

He goes on to say that while he was at the Clubhouse Martin walked past him and turned right on TTL. This has to be while he's on the phone with the dispatcher, because according to him he parked after his call to dispatch went through.

Now - this is all obviously a lie. The dispatcher doesn't ask for Zimmerman's location at the start of the call, Zimmerman volulnteers it, with the Clubhouse as the 'best' address. The dispatch later confirms the actual Clubhouse address (1111 RVC, vs 111 RVC), and Zimmerman isn't asked a thing about his location until 3:21 in to the call - long after George is out of his truck and Martin is out of sight.

It's one little aspect of a four-minute call that seems to have little direct bearing on the case...and yet George is lying about it. I wonder why that is. If we can't ignore the little lies, why should we assume the big points aren't also lies?

Just because you're ignoring the evidence doesn't mean it's not there. Take, for example, the injuries to Mr. Zimmerman - keep in mind that he didn't need injuries to claim SYG/Self-defense.

I'm not ignoring the evidence, I'm discounting it as proof that George should have been afraid for his life. A reasonable person looks at the evidence and sees signs of a scuffle that should have ended a scuffle. It should not have ended with one kid dead with a hole in his chest. Otherwise, fights in every junior high school in america should end up with one of the participants justifiably dead.

Now - as I understand it Florida does things a little bit differently from other states in terms of how self-defense is handled. It is my understanding that usually, self-defense is an affirmative defense: The defendent has to prove it was self defense. The jury must be convinced it was most likely self-defense (I can't recall if it was the same 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard or not).

In Florida, however, all the defendent has to do is show any single shred of evidence and claim it as evidence for self-defense, and he can then claim self-defense and now the prosecution must -disprove- the claim. So the burden shifts from the defendent to the prosecution.

Obviously this works best if the defendent has some knowledge of the laws and standards involved. Now, if we only had some evidence that George had any sort of familiarity with law enforcement....

I fully expect George to be acquitted, but only because of the way the law is in Florida, not because of a preponderance of evidence for his innocence.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2012, 06:26:12 AM
If we can't ignore the little lies, why should we assume the big points aren't also lies?

Now - as I understand it Florida does things a little bit differently from other states in terms of how self-defense is handled. It is my understanding that usually, self-defense is an affirmative defense: The defendent has to prove it was self defense. The jury must be convinced it was most likely self-defense (I can't recall if it was the same 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard or not).

In Florida, however, all the defendent has to do is show any single shred of evidence and claim it as evidence for self-defense, and he can then claim self-defense and now the prosecution must -disprove- the claim. So the burden shifts from the defendent to the prosecution.

I think there is one state, Ohio, that operates the way you consider the "normal" or "correct" standard of proof for deciding a self defense issue, that "the jury must be convinced it was most likely self-defense."  (See Ohio 2901.05 Burden of proof (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.05)).  The other 56 states, including Florida, provide defendant with a self defense instruction if defendant has evidence that his action was self defense, and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was not acting in self defense.

All states have self defense being an affirmative defense, which simply means it is up to defendant to assert he was acting in self defense, and it is up to defendant to produce evidence that the action was taken in self defense.

Jeralyn has covered this in her posts on the main board.  Do you read the main board?

Separately, on your principle for rejecting a person's account because they get details wrong, nobody measures credibility that way.  If I smash your face, and you get my shirt color wrong on recollection, that's a pretty normal error, and it doesn't make you a liar about getting your face smashed.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 06:27:41 AM

One aspect of DeeDee's testimony I find phony is her stating TM was scared. I really don't buy it because of TM's actions. Three things in particular strike me as actions that contradict someone who is scared.

1) TM passed by GZ in his truck. From the 911 call it is clear TM does this. Looking at an aerial view of the neighborhood it seems to me TM would have had other choices yet he chooses to pass by GZ's truck.

2) TM had plenty of time and opportunity to make it home but he chose not to go. Serino seems to be under the impression TM was hiding somewhere but TM knew he has lost GZ because Dee confirms he did. Again, looking at photos it is easy to see how wide open the area is.

3) TM confronts GZ. Whether TM asked GZ why he was following him or TM asked of GZ had a problem TM is the first to speak. The area where the struggle started looks open so it seems TM had to have approached GZ. That is not the actions of someone who is afraid.


Her testimony just doesn't ring true to me.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 11, 2012, 07:25:55 AM
I think there is one state, Ohio, that operates the way you consider the "normal" or "correct" standard of proof for deciding a self defense issue, that "the jury must be convinced it was most likely self-defense."  (See Ohio 2901.05 Burden of proof (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.05)).  The other 56 states, including Florida, provide defendant with a self defense instruction if defendant has evidence that his action was self defense, and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was not acting in self defense.
56?

Quote
If I smash your face, and you get my shirt color wrong on recollection, that's a pretty normal error, and it doesn't make you a liar about getting your face smashed
It might if the color of the shirt was critical to why I may or may not have smashed your face.

If George is not telling the truth about Martin's 'sucker punch' it puts a rather big dent in his story, no?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 11, 2012, 08:01:45 AM
1) TM passed by GZ in his truck. From the 911 call it is clear TM does this. Looking at an aerial view of the neighborhood it seems to me TM would have had other choices yet he chooses to pass by GZ's truck.

According to George the -only- place Martin 'passes by' his truck is when George is parked at the Clubhouse. Please show me how Martin gets to Twin Trees Lane without going past the Clubhouse on Retreat View Circle, or please show that it was possible (and Martin knew it was possible) to cut the long way around behind the Clubhouse.

Quote
2) TM had plenty of time and opportunity to make it home but he chose not to go. Serino seems to be under the impression TM was hiding somewhere but TM knew he has lost GZ because Dee confirms he did. Again, looking at photos it is easy to see how wide open the area is.
And George had plenty of time to get back to his truck. How is either point relevant. And how is TM supposed to 'know' he had 'lost' George? Did George 'know' he had lost Martin? No he did not - and we know that because even after he had lost sight of Martin, George did not want to say his address out loud.

Quote
3) TM confronts GZ. Whether TM asked GZ why he was following him or TM asked of GZ had a problem TM is the first to speak. The area where the struggle started looks open so it seems TM had to have approached GZ. That is not the actions of someone who is afraid.
Sheesh. Project much? If Martin was scared he wouldn't say something first? If he was scared he's just stay quiet and let George approach him? How does that even make any sense? If the area was so open why wasn't George able to just mosey on back to his truck? Remember: the *only* evidence we have of either guy following the other is George following Martin, not the other way around.

Also, DeeDee says Martin asks 'why are you following me' - that seems like an extremely reasonable, logical, and likely thing to ask to the guy that's been tracking you in his car and on foot for the last quarter of a mile.

Quote
Her testimony just doesn't ring true to me.

There are lots of reasons her testimony might not ring true, but your points above aren't any of 'em.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 11, 2012, 08:06:24 AM

Also, DeeDee says Martin asks 'why are you following me' - that seems like an extremely reasonable, logical, and likely thing to ask to the guy that's been tracking you in his car and on foot for the last quarter of a mile.



You just got done stating that DeeDee's testimony is totally unreliable.- Does that means it fits in well with the rest of your presentation?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 11, 2012, 08:26:21 AM
According to George the -only- place Martin 'passes by' his truck is when George is parked at the Clubhouse. Please show me how Martin gets to Twin Trees Lane without going past the Clubhouse on Retreat View Circle, or please show that it was possible (and Martin knew it was possible) to cut the long way around behind the Clubhouse.

He could have walked on the other side of the street or retraced via the direct rout to the 7-11. You have zero evidence that he was afraid ( that you haven't already conceded as unreliable)

And George had plenty of time to get back to his truck. How is either point relevant. And how is TM supposed to 'know' he had 'lost' George? Did George 'know' he had lost Martin? No he did not - and we know that because even after he had lost sight of Martin, George did not want to say his address out loud.

It seems rather obvious that when you lose site of a stranger, who you believe , is running out of the complex and cannot reestablish contact then you lost him.   Please prove, otherwise with some real evidence.

It is also obvious that Trayvon after running a mere 15 seconds would be a position to verify that no one turned down the T after him ( we also have DeeDee's  statement)


If you notice that I am not longer responding to your posts please don't think its because I buy what your trying to sell.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 11, 2012, 09:09:37 AM
You just got done stating that DeeDee's testimony is totally unreliable.- Does that means it fits in well with the rest of your presentation?
Thanks for making my point for me. JW uses DeeDee's testimony to 'confirm' that TM had 'lost' GZ.

The points JW is trying to make are ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with DeeDee's testimony.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 11, 2012, 09:20:01 AM
Thanks for making my point for me. JW uses DeeDee's testimony to 'confirm' that TM had 'lost' GZ.

The points JW is trying to make are ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with DeeDee's testimony.

JW, like everyone,  is not constrained by your opinions.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on July 11, 2012, 09:36:39 AM
I find Dee Dee's account to be confusing and in parts contrived, but does it make sense to at least consider her testimony where it matches up with other pieces of evidence as a form of corroboration?  Might be a reasonable approach on Z's statements as well.  Obviously their stories don't match in a lot of places, but in others they appear to match pretty well.  They both agree its raining, at least at times.  They both agree TM walks by GZ as he's sitting in his car on TTL.  They both agree TM takes off running towards BG's home as Z is sitting in his car.  They both agree that Z lost sight of TM.  They both agree that a confrontation of words took place that had TM speaking first and 3 utterances between them. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 09:45:06 AM
According to George the -only- place Martin 'passes by' his truck is when George is parked at the Clubhouse. Please show me how Martin gets to Twin Trees Lane without going past the Clubhouse on Retreat View Circle, or please show that it was possible (and Martin knew it was possible) to cut the long way around behind the Clubhouse.


Not really. When GZ is speaking to the 911 dispatcher is when I am referring to. But either way Martin passes by GZ's truck and could have went another path. That neighborhood is pretty wide open. Martin had plenty of paths to choose yet he walks by George's truck.

 
And George had plenty of time to get back to his truck. How is either point relevant. And how is TM supposed to 'know' he had 'lost' George? Did George 'know' he had lost Martin? No he did not - and we know that because even after he had lost sight of Martin, George did not want to say his address out loud.

What does George going back to his truck have to do with anything. Trayvon having time to get home is relevant. If he was scared that is where he would have went.

George did lose Martin. He tells the dispatcher "he ran" and then claims "I don't know where this kid is". How much more clear could that be?
 
 
Sheesh. Project much? If Martin was scared he wouldn't say something first? If he was scared he's just stay quiet and let George approach him? How does that even make any sense? If the area was so open why wasn't George able to just mosey on back to his truck? Remember: the *only* evidence we have of either guy following the other is George following Martin, not the other way around.


Why are you fixated on George going back to his truck?

You are wrong. Trayvon's mere presence where the struggle started proves he returned to where he had ran. That makes Trayvon the aggressor. Nothing else explains his presence there.

 
Also, DeeDee says Martin asks 'why are you following me' - that seems like an extremely reasonable, logical, and likely thing to ask to the guy that's been tracking you in his car and on foot for the last quarter of a mile.


Not really. If a person is afraid they usually don't hang around or return to inquire as to why the person is following them.

 
There are lots of reasons her testimony might not ring true, but your points above aren't any of 'em.

My points are spot on. I arrived at my conclusion by looking at the crime scene and learning what I could from witnesses with no "skin in the game", like DeeDee. I also think George's 911 call is a good reference because there isn't really a motive for him to lie at that point. Dee on the other hand has motive to lie.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 11, 2012, 09:47:26 AM
He could have walked on the other side of the street or retraced via the direct rout to the 7-11. You have zero evidence that he was afraid ( that you haven't already conceded as unreliable)
Cite that he didn't walk on the other side of the street?

It seems rather obvious that when you lose site of a stranger, who you believe , is running out of the complex and cannot reestablish contact then you lost him.
Interesting. If George thought he had lost Martin, and he assumed Martin had left the complex...what was he doing for the next two minutes? We know he didn't go back to his truck.

It is also obvious that Trayvon after running a mere 15 seconds would be a position to verify that no one turned down the T after him ( we also have DeeDee's  statement)
Cite that it was light enough around the T to see? I'm pretty sure George and many others have noted how dark it was.

There is no evidence of course that Trayvon was or wasn't scared. That's the whole point. I find it beyond laughable that someone is going to state that Trayvon 'couldn't have been scared' because he apparently 'spoke first'. What do you suppose the claim would be if Trayvon hadn't spoken first? "See, he stayed quiet because was trying to ambush George!". In fact, people are -still- trying to make this claim even though Trayvon apparently gave up any and all surprise advantage by speaking first.

The twists and contortions you and the other GZ supporters go through to try and make George blameless in all of this through all his inconcistencies is really and truly extraordinary.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 09:48:32 AM
I find Dee Dee's account to be confusing and in parts contrived, but does it make sense to at least consider her testimony where it matches up with other pieces of evidence as a form of corroboration?  Might be a reasonable approach on Z's statements as well.  Obviously their stories don't match in a lot of places, but in others they appear to match pretty well.  They both agree its raining, at least at times.  They both agree TM walks by GZ as he's sitting in his car on TTL.  They both agree TM takes off running towards BG's home as Z is sitting in his car.  They both agree that Z lost sight of TM.  They both agree that a confrontation of words took place that had TM speaking first and 3 utterances between them.

I agree except Dee really only claims 2 utterances before the struggle and the phone falling. Witness 11 heard 3 utterances before the struggle. Seeing how Trayvon's phone was found so far down the path, in the grass, I don't see how anyone can claim the third utterance as being that.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 11, 2012, 09:55:09 AM
You are wrong. Trayvon's mere presence where the struggle started proves he returned to where he had ran. That makes Trayvon the aggressor. Nothing else explains his presence there.
And what, pray tell, explains *George's* presence there, two minutes after losing Martin? Why does Martin's mere presence there automatically make him the aggressor?

Not really. If a person is afraid they usually don't hang around or return to inquire as to why the person is following them.
Interesting. George claims that he *didn't* go back to his truck and instead 'just hung around the area', as you put it, because he was scared. George does exactly what you insist a person wouldn't do. Trayvon wasn't scared, so he stayed put, George was scared so he scared put?

My points are spot on. I arrived at my conclusion by looking at the crime scene and learning what I could from witnesses with no "skin in the game", like DeeDee. I also think George's 911 call is a good reference because there isn't really a motive for him to lie at that point. Dee on the other hand has motive to lie.
I agree re George's phone call - which was NOT a 911 call, btw - so isn't it odd that in his walkthrough *the very next day*, George piles on inconsistency after inconsistency. I wonder why that is?

You think DeeDee has a motive to lie, but George doesn't?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 10:20:53 AM
And what, pray tell, explains *George's* presence there, two minutes after losing Martin? Why does Martin's mere presence there automatically make him the aggressor?

I don't accept George's account unless there is something to back it up. George claims he walked to the other street to get an address and Martin came out of the dark when he was returning to his truck. Seeing how George's truck keys were found near the "T" I find that to support George's account of that. Unless there is evidence against this account that explains the position of the keys what else could have happened?

Martin's presence makes him the aggressor because it shows he returned to the "T" or at least came out of hiding to confront George. I tend to believe Martin was further down the sidewalk because he was running toward where he was staying. If Martin was doing all this walking Dee claims he was then he should have been well on his way home yet he ended up back at the "T".
 
 
Interesting. George claims that he *didn't* go back to his truck and instead 'just hung around the area', as you put it, because he was scared. George does exactly what you insist a person wouldn't do. Trayvon wasn't scared, so he stayed put, George was scared so he scared put?

I'm not really talking about whether George was scared or not. Dee doesn't mention that. She claims Martin was scared and I think that is bunk.
 
 
I agree re George's phone call - which was NOT a 911 call, btw - so isn't it odd that in his walkthrough *the very next day*, George piles on inconsistency after inconsistency. I wonder why that is?


911 or NEN, whatever. Again, I am discussing DeeDee's testimony. Why do you keep bringing up George?

 
You think DeeDee has a motive to lie, but George doesn't?

Yes, George has the most motive to lie than anyone but we are talking about DeeDee...or at least I am.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 11, 2012, 10:29:27 AM

You think DeeDee has a motive to lie, but George doesn't?

George and  DeeDee both have vested self interests.

 However since George realizes he may be contradicted but other witnesses and evidence he has instead a motive to endeavor to tell the truth.

It is in Zimmerman's self interest to lie?

You can only make the statement if you think that the truth would not exonerate him him.

The only evidence you have of this his statements being  materially incorrect is some actual piddling errors in recollection and many vaguely constructed allegations that you call lies.

One off the justification memes that you use support these poorly considered conclusions is that it is in Zimmerman's self interest to lie.

Circular Logic on steroids?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 10:43:24 AM


You can pretty much look at everything without George's statements and see what happened. The crime scene itself shows more than people realize. I just don't think DeeDee's testimony adds up that's all.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on July 11, 2012, 10:53:35 AM
Zimmerman has incentive to tell it whichever way keeps him out of jail.

The people in the neighborhood have not going to jail for perjury as an incentive to be truthful and no incentive not to be truthful.

The young lady may think she has some incentive not to be truthful, but I would expect her parents to have explained to her that any incentive not to be truthful is far outweighed by the incentive not to be caught lying under oath.

Of course I'm not sure anyone is going to understand what she says, regardless.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 11, 2012, 10:57:28 AM
Zimmerman has incentive to tell it whichever way keeps him out of jail.



Agreed - but that is not the same as an incentive to lie.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 11:03:24 AM


But speaking of DeeDee, why does anyone think it took her as long as it did before she talked? It seems most people would have said something immediately if they were in the same position. I think even someone her age would have at least said something to a parent or friend. Seems quite odd to me.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 11, 2012, 11:05:33 AM
Cite that he didn't walk on the other side of the street? Interesting. If George thought he had lost Martin, and he assumed Martin had left the complex...what was he doing for the next two minutes? We know he didn't go back to his truck.
Cite that it was light enough around the T to see? I'm pretty sure George and many others have noted how dark it was.

There is no evidence of course that Trayvon was or wasn't scared. That's the whole point. I find it beyond laughable that someone is going to state that Trayvon 'couldn't have been scared' because he apparently 'spoke first'. What do you suppose the claim would be if Trayvon hadn't spoken first? "See, he stayed quiet because was trying to ambush George!". In fact, people are -still- trying to make this claim even though Trayvon apparently gave up any and all surprise advantage by speaking first.

The twists and contortions you and the other GZ supporters go through to try and make George blameless in all of this through all his inconcistencies is really and truly extraordinary.

Quote
*The twists and contortions you and the other GZ supporters go through to try and make George blameless in all of this through all his inconsistencies is really and truly extraordinary.*

As are yours when there is considerable evidence that supports GZ defending himself.  You came to a site that is run by a defense lawyer.  Seriously, what did you expect? 

I agree that there are inconsistencies in his statements but I also note that he had injuries to his head and was in a state of duress.

I have also been on "the other side of the table" when it comes to interrogations by the police.  It is not pleasant.  It is not a chat.  I cannot speak for GZ, but I can tell you that I did kick in with a little "self-preservation."  Unlike him, when I got to that point, I requested a lawyer and thus ended the interview. 

That he continued to cooperate with investigators tells me that he firmly believes that he was defending himself in that altercation.  I think he comes across as genuine in his reenactment.  He is trying to answer every question posed to him to the best of his ability.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 11:23:47 AM


That reminds me of something else. Why would DeeDee talk to Crump before anyone else? Did she feel the need for legal council before she spoke? Too many oddities for her to be believeable.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 11, 2012, 11:35:11 AM

But speaking of DeeDee, why does anyone think it took her as long as it did before she talked? It seems most people would have said something immediately if they were in the same position. I think even someone her age would have at least said something to a parent or friend. Seems quite odd to me.
I think she had discussed this with her family.  Her mother had to take her to an ER the night of TM's memorial.  She said it was because of high blood pressure but I think that might be an anxiety attack.  I firmly believe that a 16yr old would discuss this with friends, too. 

I also think that Tracy Martin was well aware of her conversations with Trayvon also.  When the SPD asked him for access to the phone records, he declined and told them he would check with his lawyer.  IIRC, that forced the SPD into getting a search warrant.  Crump said he had to find her and that is why it took time.  I think that is just BS because he needed time to coach her.   His records have been out on the internet for months now so I would think that someone has deciphered the calls and texts by now.  I just haven't bothered to look.

I just think she is trying to protect her friend, Trayvon.  I also think there is much more to her sanitized version of what she actually heard and things that TM might have said prior to the verbal confrontation with GZ.  I don't think it would be that favorable to TM for that very reason.

She said he lowered his voice.  I think that he came back towards the "T" and slipped into hiding.  He said he wasn't going to run after he had already run and apparently got close to Brandy Greens TH.  She then said "a couple of minutes went by" and BdlR made no effort to continue into that statement.  She said he was walking back.  BdlR didn't question her further on that either. 

All IMO, of course.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 12:46:25 PM


I agree. DeeDee's story has been "tailored" to favor the prosecution. While it does match certain events it really conflicts or is missing other key elements of the events that night. Even taken at face value I don't think it is that damaging to George. While her story may give insight into Trayvon's state of mind it doesn't really show anything about George's state of mind. At best her story shows how each one misunderstood the intentions of the other and had reason to suspect the other.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 11, 2012, 03:48:40 PM
However since George realizes he may be contradicted but other witnesses and evidence he has instead a motive to endeavor to tell the truth.

It is in Zimmerman's self interest to lie?
Worried about the other witnesses? Shouldn't he first be worried about contradicting himself? Repeatedly?

The earwitnesses are only shadows on the wall, giving us glimpses. George was there. His own contradictions are going to hurt far, far more than anyone else, precisely because he has the biggest motive of anyone to lie if he thinks it keeps him out of jail.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 03:50:51 PM
Worried about the other witnesses? Shouldn't he first be worried about contradicting himself? Repeatedly?

The earwitnesses are only shadows on the wall, giving us glimpses. George was there. His own contradictions are going to hurt far, far more than anyone else, precisely because he has the biggest motive of anyone to lie if he thinks it keeps him out of jail.

What does that have to do with Witness #8?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: AghastInFL on July 11, 2012, 04:11:08 PM
And what, pray tell, explains *George's* presence there, two minutes after losing Martin? Why does Martin's mere presence there automatically make him the aggressor?
 Interesting. George claims that he *didn't* go back to his truck and instead 'just hung around the area', as you put it, because he was scared. George does exactly what you insist a person wouldn't do. Trayvon wasn't scared, so he stayed put, George was scared so he scared put?
I agree re George's phone call - which was NOT a 911 call, btw - so isn't it odd that in his walkthrough *the very next day*, George piles on inconsistency after inconsistency. I wonder why that is?

You think DeeDee has a motive to lie, but George doesn't?
George had one reason to stay where he was scared or not: the imminent arrival of the police which he himself had called to the scene. Irregardless NEN or 911 he had been assured the SPD were on their way to the scene.

Re: perceived inconsistency; George had suffered an act of aggression... regurgitating minutia verbatim to your satisfaction was not his primary concern.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 04:18:06 PM



DeeDee's testimony is inconsistent with evidence but bring it up and some people get upset. I expect there to be conflicts in testimony. It is stronger if it is supported by something or someone else. That is what makes witness #6 a strong witness. His testimony is backed up and supported by other witnesses. DeeDee on the other hand isn't really supported by anyone.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 11, 2012, 04:32:17 PM
George had one reason to stay where he was scared or not: the imminent arrival of the police which he himself had called to the scene. Irregardless NEN or 911 he had been assured the SPD were on their way to the scene.
But they weren't called to the scene, they were just called to the complex. George just told them to call them when they got to the complex, remember? The cops don't know where the scene is. As it happened, others had already called 911, but George didn't know that.

Quote
Re: perceived inconsistency; George had suffered an act of aggression... regurgitating minutia verbatim to your satisfaction was not his primary concern.
Well...he had been involved in a fight and had just shot somebody. I'll grant that.
But anyway, this is the Witness #8 thread, so I'll stop the George comments here and will post in the George as a Witness thread.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 11, 2012, 04:35:25 PM
But they weren't called to the scene, they were just called to the complex. George just told them to call them when they got to the complex, remember? The cops don't know where the scene is. As it happened, others had already called 911, but George didn't know that.


Witness #6 told the combatants he was a calling 911. Zimmerman mentioned John's comment in his walk through.

BTW Agast's reference was about waiting two minutes for the NEN call investigator to arrive. You seem to have some reason to insist that Zimmerman should have moved directly to his truck.

Perhaps your getting your conflations confused?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 04:52:47 PM
Witness #6 told the combatants he was a calling 911. Zimmerman mentioned John's comment in his walk through.

BTW Agast's reference was about waiting two minutes for the NEN call investigator to arrive. You seem to have some reason to insist that Zimmerman should have moved directly to his truck.

Perhaps your getting your conflations confused?

I don't get that. Some people expect George to go directly to his truck yet Trayvon not going home is no problem. I wonder why Trayvon didn't tell DeeDee he was going back to the "T"?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 11, 2012, 05:05:36 PM
Arrghh - stop asking George questions in this thread  ;)

I don't mind George not going directly to his truck except when people believe that Martin 'had to be the aggressor' because him and George ended up meeting each other. Neither has any obligation to do anything or go anywhere.

I will say, that for the entire incident, Martin has only been going in the direction of his home - he's moving in the one direction he would need to go in. George says he 'circled' his truck, but it's unclear if the timeline George gives allows for this.

George, on the other hand, followed Martin first in his car then on foot for over a quarter of a mile. The jury will make of that what they will.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Martin had gone home, or if George had gone back to the truck, the whole thing never happens. If George just stays in his truck, the whole thing never happens. Unfortunately (or not, depending on your point of view), the law does not place any greater responsibility on someone just because they happen to be carrying a gun.

Re: Witness #6 told the combatants he was a calling 911, when a bystander asked George right after the shooting if he should call 911, George's response was, 'no I already called them'. Not, 'someone already called them'.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2012, 05:10:43 PM
Unfortunately (or not, depending on your point of view), the law does not place any greater responsibility on someone just because they happen to be carrying a gun.

Are you sure of that?  You seem sure of that.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 11, 2012, 05:23:31 PM
Arrghh - stop asking George questions in this thread  ;)

I don't mind George not going directly to his truck except when people believe that Martin 'had to be the aggressor' because him and George ended up meeting each other. Neither has any obligation to do anything or go anywhere.

I will say, that for the entire incident, Martin has only been going in the direction of his home - he's moving in the one direction he would need to go in. George says he 'circled' his truck, but it's unclear if the timeline George gives allows for this.

George, on the other hand, followed Martin first in his car then on foot for over a quarter of a mile. The jury will make of that what they will.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Martin had gone home, or if George had gone back to the truck, the whole thing never happens. If George just stays in his truck, the whole thing never happens. Unfortunately (or not, depending on your point of view), the law does not place any greater responsibility on someone just because they happen to be carrying a gun.

Re: Witness #6 told the combatants he was a calling 911, when a bystander asked George right after the shooting if he should call 911, George's response was, 'no I already called them'. Not, 'someone already called them'.

Who is asking "George" questions in this thread? You seem to be fixated on him.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Raoul on July 11, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Someone using Zimmerman's phone called 911 after the shooting.  There's an event log for it. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 11, 2012, 10:22:58 PM
Someone using Zimmerman's phone called 911 after the shooting.  There's an event log for it.

Raoul, I have never seen that.  Do you have a link for it?  TIA!
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on July 12, 2012, 10:05:26 AM
Page 37 Sybrina says she started to hear about DeeDee this past Christmas. DeeDee says in her interview she knew Trayvon for 10 years.

http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 12, 2012, 10:59:48 AM
Never mind - pg 32 says they had been seeing each other for about 2 1/2 years.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on July 12, 2012, 02:09:23 PM
Never mind - pg 32 says they had been seeing each other for about 2 1/2 years.

Are you talking about who Trayvon Martin was involved with, or who his father Tracy Martin was involved with?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on July 12, 2012, 07:30:38 PM
Are you talking about who Trayvon Martin was involved with, or who his father Tracy Martin was involved with?

Brandy Green said she and Tracy Martin were involved for 2 1/2 years.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on July 12, 2012, 08:02:32 PM
When did Tracy claim he first became aware of DeeDee?

I'm pretty sure it was well after TM's funeral but I just found out about this interview of TM's cousin, Ronquavis Fulton, where he states he met with DeeDee at the funeral on 3/12/2012.

Fair warning, it is Nancy Grace :-\
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/04/02/trayvons-cousin-its-him-screaming
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on July 12, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Brandy Green said she and Tracy Martin were involved for 2 1/2 years.

Redbrow said

"Page 37 Sybrina says she started to hear about DeeDee this past Christmas. DeeDee says in her interview she knew Trayvon for 10 years."

then dragon ash says

"Never mind - pg 32 says they had been seeing each other for about 2 1/2 years."

so I was asking him, since he seemed to have confused the father's love live with that of the son, or the other way around.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Zetetic on July 12, 2012, 11:54:53 PM
I watched Zimmerman's reenactment (Part 1) on Orlando Sentinel and after watching this it appears to me that Dee Dee's testimony actually fits with this reenactment.

However, since I am a new poster here, I want to make sure it is okay that I post this.  Would it be okay?

BTW, I have been reading here quite a bit and I appreciate the manner in which this subject is being discussed.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on July 13, 2012, 01:19:51 AM
I watched Zimmerman's reenactment (Part 1) on Orlando Sentinel and after watching this it appears to me that Dee Dee's testimony actually fits with this reenactment. However, since I am a new poster here, I want to make sure it is okay that I post this.  Would it be okay?

BTW, I have been reading here quite a bit and I appreciate the manner in which this subject is being discussed.

Welcome to our forums, Zetetic. Yes you can write about your theory in this thread since it's the DeeDee thread. Are you working off a transcript or the audio?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Zetetic on July 13, 2012, 01:41:32 AM
I am working off of the Reenactment Video (Part 1) that is on OrlandoSentinal and comparing that with Dee Dee's testimony.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Zetetic on July 13, 2012, 01:57:18 AM
I was just thinking, I hope there is not any kind of copyright violation with my transcribing the video from Orlando Sentinel.  :-[ If there is, please delete my post.
Title: The Weariness of Trayvon
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 13, 2012, 02:04:28 AM

I'm responding to a comment (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2057.msg96228.html#msg96228) on another thread. This comment wouldn't be on topic there.

willisnewton:
Quote
Dee Dee urges him to run on home, and he tells her he's almost there, tired and isn't going to run anymore. 

Dee Dee said that at that point Martin told her he wouldn't run because he was almost home, period (8:57-9:20). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) She didn't say he was tired until after the 'couple of minutes', when the strange man appeared again behind him, and for the third time she urged him to run (9:21-10:09).

Dee Dee said she asked Martin why he wouldn't run. She seemed to be starting to say how he answered, but then she interrupted herself to explain how she could tell that Martin was tired from the sound of his breathing.

Then de la Rionda interjected this gem (9:57-10:04):

Quote
I'm sorry. Trayvon said he's not running because, he's not gonna run, he said, because you could tell he was tired?

The hypothesis seems to be that Martin would have run, despite being tired, if only Dee Dee had not been able to tell that he was tired. And that's what he told Dee Dee.

Dee Dee solemnly answered in the affirmative. These two make quite a team.

We still don't know what Dee Dee told Crump.

Crump has given us a summary version, (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html) and it's a bit different.

In Crump's version Dee Dee never said Martin was tired.

Crump said Dee Dee urged Martin to run twice. The first time, it was because Martin had slowed down so the following vehicle could catch up with him, so he could get a look inside. So Dee Dee told Martin to run, and he did run.

Quote
He's running trying to lose him. He tells her, I think I lost him. So, he's walking and then she says that he says very simply, oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again.

The part where Dee Dee said 'keep running' gets a skip in this version.

When Martin was being followed again, said Crump, Dee Dee told him to run again. Martin said he wouldn't run, and he didn't explain why. Instead, he said he would 'walk fast'.

The 'walk fast' line is not to be found anywhere in the recording of Dee Dee's interview with de la Rionda. Martin slowing down for the car to catch up with him, and trying to look inside, isn't there either.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Zetetic on July 13, 2012, 02:12:31 AM
Sorry, but I changed this and deleted what I wrote until I find out whether or not transcribing the video from Orlando Sentinel is any kind of copyright violation. :-X
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on July 13, 2012, 03:43:44 AM


Also the phone was found further down the path. If it had fallen like she claimed it would have been where the struggle began. Fuuny how she mentions it "Fell in the grass" as if she could see through the phone. In reality it just shows how her story was made up by someone who had seen the crime scene photos.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Cylinder on July 13, 2012, 03:56:43 AM
Deleted for now - I hope! :)  I certainly would not want to violate anyone's copyright. Well, I guess I didn't delete it after all.  :-\ But, IF this is any kind of a violation, I hope someone does! ;D

The parts that are evidence (statements, recordings, videos, etc) are public records. That's why they have to be furnished by the state.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 13, 2012, 04:34:44 AM
Redbrow said

"Page 37 Sybrina says she started to hear about DeeDee this past Christmas. DeeDee says in her interview she knew Trayvon for 10 years."

then dragon ash says

"Never mind - pg 32 says they had been seeing each other for about 2 1/2 years."

so I was asking him, since he seemed to have confused the father's love live with that of the son, or the other way around.
No, you're right. I mixed up Trayvon and Tracy on pg 32.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: dragon ash on July 13, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
I got guilt...
Why is no one broaching that subject?
Maybe because it means jack? Maybe because it's the equivalent of someone feeling 'guilt' for being so helpless to help a loved one that meets a senseless death?

Just what are you suggesting DeeDee is professing guilt for?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: AghastInFL on July 13, 2012, 08:40:47 AM
Maybe because it means jack? Maybe because it's the equivalent of someone feeling 'guilt' for being so helpless to help a loved one that means a senseless death?

Just what are you suggesting DeeDee is professing guilt for?
exactly the reply I would expect of you, there is however an alternate explanation wherein the words the person uses actually carry meaning. I will be however most interested if the case gets to trial and the State is forced to call W-8.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on July 13, 2012, 08:41:47 AM
I'd feel really bad if I had been on the phone with someone right before an assault and battery began and his life was ended.  Don't think I'd ever say I felt guilty unless I had some hand in how the event unfolded.  Of course her command of the English language isn't the best, so she could mean something totally different than guilt. 
Title: Guilt and Grief
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 13, 2012, 09:19:57 AM

Guilt feelings are a normal part of the grieving process, and likely to be exacerbated in cases like this.

If a person doesn't know this, from life experience or some study of psychology, I don't know what more there is to say except to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: dragon ash on July 13, 2012, 09:22:46 AM
exactly the reply I would expect of you, there is however an alternate explanation wherein the words the person uses actually carry meaning. I will be however most interested if the case gets to trial and the State is forced to call W-8.
Don't be coy. Please share with us your theory of why you think DeeDee feels 'guilt'.

She's a 16yr old kid that had her boyfriend shot point-blank in the chest while she was talking to him on the phone. If you can't see any number of plausible reasons for her to feel like she didn't do enough to help him, and how that might manifest itself as 'guilt' over his death, well...all I can say is that perhaps you need to have a bit more life experience before you'd understand.

Or, on edit: what nomatter_nevermind said.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: unitron on July 13, 2012, 10:26:52 AM
Don't be coy. Please share with us your theory of why you think DeeDee feels 'guilt'.

She's a 16yr old kid that had her boyfriend shot point-blank in the chest while she was talking to him on the phone. If you can't see any number of plausible reasons for her to feel like she didn't do enough to help him, and how that might manifest itself as 'guilt' over his death, well...all I can say is that perhaps you need to have a bit more life experience before you'd understand.

Or, on edit: what nomatter_nevermind said.

Maybe it's part of the same "unified something-or-the-other" theory that explains why Martin couldn't ambush Zimmerman from behind but had to get his attention first and attack from the front.

You know, the "can only be alluded to but never expressed directly" theory.
Title: Re: Guilt and Grief
Post by: leftwig on July 13, 2012, 11:00:24 AM
Guilt feelings are a normal part of the grieving process, and likely to be exacerbated in cases like this.

If a person doesn't know this, from life experience or some study of psychology, I don't know what more there is to say except to agree to disagree.

My cousins and sister were on a hayride and they ranged in age from 6-12.  I didn't go because I chose to go to a football game.  During the hayride, the tractor got out of gear and went uncontrollably down a hill.  The older cousins jumped off, my sister and youngest cousin tried to hang on.  My sister was able to hang on, my youngest cousin wasn't and was crushed by the wagon and died that night.  The cousins who jumped off had guilt afterwards because they felt they could have done something to help had they not jumped off.  My sister felt remorse for his death, but not guilt because she was hanging on and couldn't help.  I had a great feeling of remorse because my cousin was dead and I maybe could have been there to help, but no guilt because there wasn't anything I could have done. 

Just my opinion and experience that one generally (not in all cases of course) feels guilty if they felt they could have done something to change the outcome.  They feel remorse/sadness when someone close to them dies.  Dee Dee's story seems to be that at every moment she was yelling and begging for him to keep running away.   Not sure I'd feel any guilt about that 5 weeks later, but guess for some people that is possible.  I just don't find it as likely as some alternative theories, especially given the tone of her twitter account the days after the shooting.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on July 13, 2012, 11:46:37 AM
Has she testified under oath that that is indeed her twitter account and that no one but she posted what's on there?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on July 13, 2012, 12:19:22 PM
Well, if the standard of discussing Dee Dee's feelings would be if they were admissible or were going to be used in court, then I could see being held to that standard.  As a matter of practical application when discussing why she may have felt a certain way, I think its reasonable enough to assume that the posts on the account were hers as I don't see any reason to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: AghastInFL on July 13, 2012, 12:50:50 PM
Quote
Don't be coy. Please share with us your theory of why you think DeeDee feels 'guilt'.

She's a 16yr old kid that had her boyfriend shot point-blank in the chest while she was talking to him on the phone. If you can't see any number of plausible reasons for her to feel like she didn't do enough to help him, and how that might manifest itself as 'guilt' over his death, well...all I can say is that perhaps you need to have a bit more life experience before you'd understand.

Or, on edit: what nomatter_nevermind said.
I suggest anyone interested listen to the interview, I believe the investigator failed in his job as an impartial inquisitor when the witness moves from describing the 'baby, mama's boy..." to "I got guilt...  he would never fight, thats the problem" it was not his job to interject opinion into the line of questioning but rather to allow the witness to describe in her words. Like I said if you are interested LISTEN to it yourself.

I dont have to espouse a theory, the simple fact is the defense must counter the offense; if they postulate that TM could not did not have a motive for attacking GZ then it behooves a defender to investigate if there is/was such a motivator. Surely if it is not GZ that is the aggressor then for some reason he was attacked, if so why? It is entirely possible as they were in direct contact at that moment that provocation could be a motivator.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: unitron on July 13, 2012, 02:11:20 PM
Don't be coy. Please share with us your theory of why you think DeeDee feels 'guilt'.

She's a 16yr old kid that had her boyfriend shot point-blank in the chest while she was talking to him on the phone. If you can't see any number of plausible reasons for her to feel like she didn't do enough to help him, and how that might manifest itself as 'guilt' over his death, well...all I can say is that perhaps you need to have a bit more life experience before you'd understand.

Or, on edit: what nomatter_nevermind said.

To be perfectly nitpicky, as far as we know the conversation was cut off before the shot was fired.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: turbo6 on July 17, 2012, 08:41:27 PM
I'm wondering if DeeDee ends up testifying if any of it would be coherent enough to actually benefit the prosecution.

Her statement bothers me because its so enigmatic. She was on the phone with TM for awhile, yet elaborates on virtually nothing they talked about. Then we have the notion TM lost GZ, sees him again, runs, walks, doesn't run, is out of breath, is by his house, ends up back at the T.

I just don't know what to make of it other than she has horrible communication skills or she is just really good at being vague. Perhaps both.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: Lousy1 on July 17, 2012, 09:43:24 PM
To be perfectly nitpicky, as far as we know the conversation was cut off before the shot was fired.

Quote from: dragon ash on July 13, 2012, 11:22:46 AM
Quote
She's a 16yr old kid that had her boyfriend shot point-blank in the chest while she was talking to him on the phone. If you can't see any number of plausible reasons for her to feel like she didn't do enough to help him, and how that might manifest itself as 'guilt' over his death, well...all I can say is that perhaps you need to have a bit more life experience before you'd understand.

In the interview DeeDee denies that TM is her boyfriend. De La Rionda attempts to put those words in her mouth finally settles for (IMM) ' well your working on it'. The cousin who claims to have spent almost every weekend with TM said that TM was talking to a girl at 11:00 that Saturday evening before the shooting The cousin took the phone and talked for a minute in an attempt to guess the identity of the girl.

This is not Tristan and Isolde.


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: jupchurch on July 18, 2012, 12:02:48 PM
I just don't know what to make of it other than she has horrible communication skills or she is just really good at being vague. Perhaps both.

She doesn't seem to have a good grasp of standard English. I remember one part where she said that Martin was talking low. It took me a while to figure out that she meant he was whispering. I also suspect she was terrified talking to the state attorney. However, they are talking about not having a trial until 2014, so could improve a lot in that time. I wonder what kind of testimony she is going to give when someone from
O'Mara's office interviews her.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on July 18, 2012, 12:06:14 PM
Quote from: dragon ash on July 13, 2012, 11:22:46 AM
In the interview DeeDee denies that TM is her boyfriend. De La Rionda attempts to put those words in her mouth finally settles for (IMM) ' well your working on it'. The cousin who claims to have spent almost every weekend with TM said that TM was talking to a girl at 11:00 that Saturday evening before the shooting The cousin took the phone and talked for a minute in an attempt to guess the identity of the girl.

This is not Tristan and Isolde.

Barney and Thelma Lou?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: dragon ash on July 18, 2012, 12:20:37 PM
Just for the record, the text in the quote box in IgnatiusJDonnelly's post just above this one is all from Lousy1, not me.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 18, 2012, 12:21:13 PM

She's a 16yr old kid that had her boyfriend shot point-blank in the chest while she was talking to him on the phone.

She had a boyfriend; it wasn't Trayvon.
She didn't really seem to care.

I can't remember how much of the information I have was actually put into evidence so I guess I won't go any further until I re-read, but suffice to say--if she takes the stand, it will be interesting.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: AJ on July 18, 2012, 12:25:29 PM
She had a boyfriend; it wasn't Trayvon.
She didn't really seem to care.

I can't remember how much of the information I have was actually put into evidence so I guess I won't go any further until I re-read, but suffice to say--if she takes the stand, it will be interesting.

You almost got it all! She wasn't on the phone with him when he got shot, it disconnected before. (If you hadn't quoted him, I wouldn't have seen it lol)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on July 18, 2012, 12:30:54 PM
Just for the record, the text in the quote box in IgnatiusJDonnelly's post just above this one is all from Lousy1, not me.

Whoops! Sorry
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 18, 2012, 01:23:16 PM
You almost got it all! She wasn't on the phone with him when he got shot, it disconnected before. (If you hadn't quoted him, I wouldn't have seen it lol)

Yeah but I don't remember how much is actual evidence v. what's been discovered (and will probably become evidence once O'Mara starts), and since we've been asked to not talk about things that aren't actually evidence...even though some people do, I don't wanna piss of Jeralyn  8) ;D
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee) I got guilt...
Post by: TalkLeft on July 18, 2012, 09:43:03 PM
Yeah but I don't remember how much is actual evidence v. what's been discovered (and will probably become evidence once O'Mara starts), and since we've been asked to not talk about things that aren't actually evidence...even though some people do, I don't wanna piss of Jeralyn  8) ;D

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm aware of what you are talking about.  I'm sure O'Mara is too. But until O'Mara refers to it in a pleading or statement or at a court hearing, or the state (as opposed to Team Crump) inaccurately describes her  or her relationship with Trayvon (which makes the information fair game) I'm asking that it not be discussed because it lwill just lead to a character attack on her.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 18, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
She doesn't seem to have a good grasp of standard English. I remember one part where she said that Martin was talking low. It took me a while to figure out that she meant he was whispering. I also suspect she was terrified talking to the state attorney. However, they are talking about not having a trial until 2014, so could improve a lot in that time. I wonder what kind of testimony she is going to give when someone from
O'Mara's office interviews her.

It would make a great 'My Fair Lady' sub plot

O'Mara   It is now is 3:45 PM. We are...

DeeDee  Solicitor, If I might point out .. I find it positively, impossible to concentrate if you insist on serving tea in such shoddy ceramic.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 20, 2012, 07:23:56 PM
DeeDee  Solicitor, If I might point out .. I find it positively, impossible to concentrate if you insist on serving tea in such shoddy ceramic.


Excellent.

Thanks for the laugh.
Title: Hearsay: The Exception to the Exception
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 20, 2012, 11:00:34 PM
 (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2085.msg97878.html#msg97878)

Kyreth:
Quote
What I think I'd heard/read is that if there's proven to be things untrue in those statements that might cause it to be allowed under the exceptions...so would things like Deedee saying Trayvon told her he was rushing because of the game, when there's seemingly proof that he was taking his sweet time...

...could that be the kind of thing that keeps her testimony from being allowed at all?

That must have been one of my comments. I don't think anyone else has taken an interest in this. I would like to hear what some of the lawyers think.

Fla. Stat. § 90.803: (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html)
Quote
SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.—A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

I googled for case law on this and didn't find anything on point. I did get the impression that trial judges have a lot of discretion in this area. In other words, if the trial judge admits Dee Dee's testimony, and Zimmerman makes that a ground for appeal, it's not likely the appellate court would overturn the conviction on that ground.

So, it's not a question of hard and fast rules, but of what the trial judge finds persuasive.

Again, that's a non lawyer's opinion/guess, and I'd really like to hear from the lawyers on this.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: cboldt on July 21, 2012, 05:14:54 AM
Admissibility is different from credibility.  There are plenty of admissible witnesses/testimony that amount to bald-faced lies.  She can testify as to what she heard and what she said, but she can't provide opinion about the meaning of that.  Just to pick an example, she can't testify that Martin was scared.  That's a conclusion or opinion.  She can testify that he lowered his voice.

There are valid hearsay arguments that limit her testimony, but I think the court will allow most of her testimony to come in anyway (DeeDee's statements of Martin's descriptions of where he is or was; what he is observing or has observed).  "Spontaneous expression" is a form of hearsay that becomes admissible, because it is a spontaneous remark and therefore thought to be more reliably true.  A remark about rushing home to see a televised game is not a spontaneous remark.  There is lots of material on the web about the rationale of admitting spontaneous remark, but for example, see Alaska Rule 803 - Hearsay Exceptions (http://courts.alaska.gov/evcomm.htm#803).  "Excited Utterance" and "Spontaneous Exclamation" apply the same principle.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 21, 2012, 05:30:02 AM

However, they are talking about not having a trial until 2014, so could improve a lot in that time. I wonder what kind of testimony she is going to give when someone from
O'Mara's office interviews her.
quickly>

I assume a SYG hearing could happen fairly quickly?
It also appears that O'Mara can force DeeDee to give a one deposition at short notice.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: cboldt on July 21, 2012, 06:20:07 AM
I assume a SYG hearing could happen fairly quickly?
It also appears that O'Mara can force DeeDee to give a one deposition at short notice.

Scheduling of opposing witness depositions requires "reasonable written notice to each other party and shall make a good faith effort to coordinate the date, time, and location of the deposition to  accommodate the schedules of other parties and the witness to be deposed."  DeeDee is the only person in her group, unlike SPD witnesses (or residents of Retreat at Twin Lakes) who might be scheduled to appear in a common location, on a common day, etc.

O'Mara may want to have depositions of the eyewitnesses and 911 callers under his belt, before he deposes DeeDee, and all depositions will likely be taken before he moves for dismissal of the charge on the basis of immunity.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: spectator on July 21, 2012, 06:34:53 AM
I wonder how difficult it would be to see GZ 's race or talking on the phone at that time and exact place, i assume his window was up, might be a good idea to do a reenactment one night to see how hard it would be to see in the vehicle.

The old man, the grass, it seems odd TM telling her he's putting his hoodie on, or even her remembering that and why bring it up, i know same old gripe but ... fishy fishy fishy.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 21, 2012, 07:38:43 AM
I wonder how difficult it would be to see GZ 's race or talking on the phone at that time and exact place, i assume his window was up, might be a good idea to do a reenactment one night to see how hard it would be to see in the vehicle.

The old man, the grass, it seems odd TM telling her he's putting his hoodie on, or even her remembering that and why bring it up, i know same old gripe but ... fishy fishy fishy.

Dee Dee said that TM told her GZ was white:

BDLR: OK…did he describe the man who was watching him?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he said white.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: jupchurch on July 21, 2012, 10:27:24 AM
quickly>

I assume a SYG hearing could happen fairly quickly?
It also appears that O'Mara can force DeeDee to give a one deposition at short notice.

I know of at least one recent case, where the defense didn't even request a SYG hearing until a year after the killing.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on July 21, 2012, 10:52:06 AM
I know of at least one recent case, where the defense didn't even request a SYG hearing until a year after the killing.

Do you know if the defendant was under any (onerous) bond conditions?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: cboldt on July 21, 2012, 11:14:33 AM
Do you know if the defendant was under any (onerous) bond conditions?

Bond conditions are a separate issue, and can be argued at any time.

FWIW, I've posted a link to the Jarkas immunity order (http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/files/34726-32374/JarkasOrder1.pdf) a couple times.  In that case, an immunity motion was filed and granted AFTER the trial.  I don't know if an immunity motion was also filed before the trial, but if it was, it hadn't been granted.  The jury was unable to reach a verdict on a murder charge, so there was no finding of guilt or acquittal.  The trial court granted immunity, because the only evidence the state had, for its narrative, was circumstantial.  IIRC, the state has that order on appeal.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: spectator on July 21, 2012, 02:10:41 PM
Dee Dee said that TM told her GZ was white:

BDLR: OK…did he describe the man who was watching him?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he said white.

 Deb doe's it seem TM informs her GZ is white and on the phone before he left the clubhouse?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Juan on July 21, 2012, 02:45:25 PM
quickly>

I assume a SYG hearing could happen fairly quickly?
It also appears that O'Mara can force DeeDee to give a one deposition at short notice.

Not likely to happen quickly if the Trevor Dooley case in Tampa is an indication. A manslaughter charge was made in September of 2010 ($50k bond & prohibited from owning a gun or returning to his home). The SYG motion didn't come until April of this year & a ruling denying the immunity came in May. A trial is slated for September ... two years after the shooting. The defense says they would appeal the judge's ruling, but I've heard no more about that
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 21, 2012, 10:16:24 PM
Deb doe's it seem TM informs her GZ is white and on the phone before he left the clubhouse?

Deb doe's it seem TM informs her GZ is white and on the phone before he left the clubhouse?

It seems to me that she is referring to him being by the mailboxes only because a little further down she talks about the phone call being dropped.  That would be the second time she references a dropped call.  The first being just before he got to the mail area.  I think that is the same dropped call.

From the transcript posted at JQ, with many thanks to the person who did this.

BDLR: So, did he tell you that he was already inside, like the gated place?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he ran in there.
BDLR: OK…
Dee Dee: That’s when the phone hung up…
BDLR: OK, I’m sorry..
Dee Dee: The phone hung up, and I call him back again.

BDLR: OK, and then what happened? What did he tell you?
Dee Dee: He under the shade.
BDLR: OK..
Dee Dee: …the mail area.
BDLR: Alright, OK, and you say shade, like a covered area…
Dee Dee: Yeah…
BDLR: …so he wouldn’t get wet.
Dee Dee: Mmm hmm [Yes].
BDLR: OK, and what else did he …did Trayvon tell you?
Dee Dee: And like…
BDLR: And I know this is difficult for you, but just take your time and tell us what you remember happening.
Dee Dee: A couple minutes later he come and tell me this man is watchin’ him.
BDLR: OK…did he describe the man who was watching him?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he said white.
BDLR: OK, did he say whether the man was standing, sitting…
Dee Dee: In a car.
BDLR: In a car?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: What did he say about the man who was watching him…
Dee Dee: He was on the phone.
BDLR: He was on the phone?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, and what did Trayvon say after that?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Dee: He was telling me like…like he a man watching him, so he like started walking.
BDLR: He, Trayvon, started walking?
Dee Dee: He goin’ start walking.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: And then…the phone hung up. And I call him back again. And then, I say ‘What you doin’?’ and he say he walkin’ and he said this man still following him, behind the car. And I’m like…or like, he told me…he tell me..he put his hoodie on, so I like…


This last interchange, I think she is saying that he has left the mailboxes and is walking toward the E-W sidewalk.   I think that this is the start of the 7:12pm call that ran for the 4 minutes until the altercation disconnected the phone.

 

6:45-6:50 (5 min. - from Martin to DeeDee)
6:46-6:48 (2 min - from Martin to non-T-Mob.)
6:49-6:53 (4 min. - to Martin from DeeDee)
6:53-6:54 (1 min. - from Martin to DeeDee?)
6:54-6:55 (1 min. - from Martin to DeeDee?)
6:54-7:12 (18 min. - to Martin from DeeDee)
7:04-7:05 (1 min. - to Martin from non-T-Mob.)
7:08 text from DeeDee
7:12-7:16 (4 min. - to Martin from DeeDee

I have been beating my own head trying to figure out when her phone is disconnecting.  She talks about the phone acting up so I think she is talking about dropped calls.  There are a few short calls listed but these teens were talking a lot that day and most of the calls were for longer periods.  She refers to calling him back again.  The calls in red are incoming from Dee Dee. 
 
She says she got disconnected from him when he is entering the mail area so that might be the end of the 18 minutes call @7:12pm.
There is a one minute call to TM @7:04pm and that might be Chad Green. But that probably came through on call waiting.
We know she got disconnected @ 7:16pm

Many thanks to MJW for his timeline with the calls!
I would like to CCP this to the thread I started about Dee Dee's Transcript.  I hate having to retype.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: jupchurch on July 23, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
Do you know if the defendant was under any (onerous) bond conditions?

The case I was thinking of was Trevor Dooley. I checked the judge  has already rejected his SYG request.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/stand-your-ground-claim-by-trevor-dooley-in-fatal-park-shooting-rejected/1230020 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/stand-your-ground-claim-by-trevor-dooley-in-fatal-park-shooting-rejected/1230020)
The orginal shooting happened September 2010.
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_34 (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_34)

His bond was set at $50,000.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=148431 (http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=148431)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: spectator on August 02, 2012, 02:02:13 AM
Transcript from justicequest:

Quote
BDLR: OK, thank you. Um…I think I already asked you, but let me make sure…he did tell you what he was at the store…the store where he had gotten candy or something, and you said iced tea, right?

Dee Dee: Yes.   
   

What a coincidence !




And this

Quote
Dee Dee: When he was at the…um…the mail thing

BDLR: Yeah.

Dee Dee: The man was on the phone.

BDLR: Alright.

Dee Dee: That’s what he was telling me.

BDLR: I’m sorry…what, what?

Dee Dee: He was telling me the man was on the phone. He put his hoodie on.

BDLR: Right. 




If you think that's credible then you have to wonder if TM suspected GZ was possibly reporting him.


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 02, 2012, 03:43:16 AM
What a coincidence !

I don't get it. What is a coincidence with what?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: spectator on August 02, 2012, 04:03:16 AM
I don't get it. What is a coincidence with what?
   

Sorry bout that, what i'm pointing out is why would she say iced tea when it was watermelon drink, iced tea was all over the media at the time and few knew it was actually watermelon.

The odds she'd remember or TM telling her it was iced tea would be very slim.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 02, 2012, 04:25:46 AM
   

Sorry bout that, what i'm pointing out is why would she say iced tea when it was watermelon drink, iced tea was all over the media at the time and few knew it was actually watermelon.

The odds she'd remember or TM telling her it was iced tea would be very slim.

I'm not sure how significant that is. It was written down on a police report as iced tea so it might be pretty common for people in the area to refer to that brand as just "iced tea" no matter what the flavor.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: spectator on August 02, 2012, 05:04:23 AM
Oh it's significant, but it doe's take some thought to understand how much.


 


 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 02, 2012, 05:13:21 AM
Oh it's significant, but it doe's take some thought to understand how much.

If you're now referring to the theory about how watermelon drink and skittles might be used then I'm aware of it and think most people here have heard the theory. However, I don't think Jeralyn allows that kind of speculation here.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: spectator on August 02, 2012, 05:26:03 AM
No not all FB, nothing to do with that. it's about random mathematical probability.

It's one of the many reasons i believe she's been coached and not being truthful. ;)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 02, 2012, 05:35:20 AM
No not all FB, nothing to do with that. it's about random mathematical probability.

It's one of the many reasons i believe she's been coached and not being truthful. ;)

Oh, I agree. But as I said, since iced tea was used on police reports that night I suspect it's a common way of referring to all flavors of the brand. Maybe someone from the area can confirm.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 02, 2012, 06:09:43 AM
No not all FB, nothing to do with that. it's about random mathematical probability.

It's one of the many reasons i believe she's been coached and not being truthful. ;)
It is silly but the part that bothers me is that she refers to Zimmerman's vehicle as a car.  Zimmerman refers to his vehicle as a car in his written statement.

He has a truck, not an SUV.    Why wouldn't TM say he was sitting in a truck on the phone?

It's nitpicky but it just bugs me.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 06:17:54 AM
It is silly but the part that bothers me is that she refers to Zimmerman's vehicle as a car.  Zimmerman refers to his vehicle as a car in his written statement.

He has a truck, not an SUV.    Why wouldn't TM say he was sitting in a truck on the phone?

It's nitpicky but it just bugs me.

Wasn't it a Honda Ridgeline? I wouldn't call that a truck (as someone who owns both SUV's and trucks). I frequently refer to my Expedition as the car (and for some bizarre reason it's registered as a "station wagon" while the Explorer a friend owns is registered as an "SUV").

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 02, 2012, 06:18:51 AM
He has a truck, not an SUV. Why wouldn't TM say he was sitting in a truck on the phone?

I wouldn't know the difference. Are you sure Martin would?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 02, 2012, 06:26:57 AM
It is silly but the part that bothers me is that she refers to Zimmerman's vehicle as a car.  Zimmerman refers to his vehicle as a car in his written statement.

He has a truck, not an SUV.    Why wouldn't TM say he was sitting in a truck on the phone?

It's nitpicky but it just bugs me.

Maybe TM did say truck and DD just said car. I use car/truck interchangeably myself at times. Especially if a person takes the lead in a conversation by using one or the other. I'll tend to just refer to the vehicle as a car or truck depending on what word they used. I don't recall what GZ put in his written statement so I'll just take your word for it. So, even he said car when it's actually a truck. *shrug*
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 02, 2012, 07:16:22 AM
Oh, I agree. But as I said, since iced tea was used on police reports that night I suspect it's a common way of referring to all flavors of the brand. Maybe someone from the area can confirm.

Probably a mistake on the police report that went viral.

That the news media kept repeating ICE TEA is one thing. That Dee Dee, who was talking to TM that night says he bought Iced tea, is another. Watch the 7-11 video. TM does not dawdle at the cooler section at all. He walks
straight back to where the ARIZONA products were located, grabs what he came in for. (Watermelon Punch-tastes like Hawaiin Punch by the way). To me the fact that Dee Dee said TM bought tea would indicate coaching or influence of news reports)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 07:29:41 AM
Since you guys are talking about the watermelon v. tea thing, I'm curious about something: where was the first mention of "iced tea"? It was a police report, yeah? Even though they (the police) had a picture of the can in their report.

Is that accurate? Not that it has anything to do with DD, I'm just curious.

I've wondered if there was a reluctance to ID it as "watermelon" for any of a number of reasons.

I can't really see TM--if he was on the phone with her--saying "yeah I'm gonna get an Arizona Green Tea with Honey and Ginsing." when he could just say "I'm getting a drink hold on."

But tea...that came from a specific place.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 02, 2012, 07:59:49 AM
It's the company's flagship product and therefore the most familiar.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: spectator on August 02, 2012, 08:04:15 AM
I think it was just a simple a mistake(?) that the TM team was unaware of, can't say for sure.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 02, 2012, 08:05:50 AM
Since you guys are talking about the watermelon v. tea thing, I'm curious about something: where was the first mention of "iced tea"? It was a police report, yeah? Even though they (the police) had a picture of the can in their report.

Is that accurate? Not that it has anything to do with DD, I'm just curious.

I've wondered if there was a reluctance to ID it as "watermelon" for any of a number of reasons.

I can't really see TM--if he was on the phone with her--saying "yeah I'm gonna get an Arizona Green Tea with Honey and Ginsing." when he could just say "I'm getting a drink hold on."

But tea...that came from a specific place.

Offhand the earliest reference I can find is 3/2/2012 in a report by Joseph Santiago. It's on page 16.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf

It's also on the evidence list but there's no "recovered date". Bottom of page 6.

http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/ZIMMERMAN-SANFORD-OFFENSE-REPORT-0517.pdf
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: AghastInFL on August 02, 2012, 08:20:33 AM
Offhand the earliest reference I can find is 3/2/2012 in a report by Joseph Santiago. It's on page 16.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf

It's also on the evidence list but there's no "recovered date". Bottom of page 6.

http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/ZIMMERMAN-SANFORD-OFFENSE-REPORT-0517.pdf
What I find interesting is there is never a correction made, even with photographic evidence and the can collected, no one correctly identifies the product... NO ONE.
I find that strange.

btw I live in the area... IMO and IME it is a common reference to call Arizona products Ice Tea; but then prior to this case I was unaware they made any other product, however as noted Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail is not Ice Tea, as Sprite is not Coke, or OJ is not milk.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 02, 2012, 08:25:59 AM
What I find interesting is there is never a correction made, even with photographic evidence and the can collected, no one correctly identifies the product... NO ONE.
I find that strange.

btw I live in the area... IMO and IME it is a common reference to call Arizona products Ice Tea; but then prior to this case I was unaware they made any other product, however as noted Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail is not Ice Tea, as Sprite is not Coke, or OJ is not milk.
To this day no one except the BUFFS mentions it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 08:30:35 AM
To this day no one except the BUFFS mentions it.

Maybe we should veer back towards DD so The Hostess doesn't get cross with us. I didn't mean to send the thread afield.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 02, 2012, 08:40:50 AM
It's pertinent to her statement, but perhaps you are right.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 02, 2012, 08:50:04 AM
What I find interesting is there is never a correction made, even with photographic evidence and the can collected, no one correctly identifies the product... NO ONE.
I find that strange.

People still call the NEN call GZ made a 911 call. It's just habit now and tough to break.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 02, 2012, 09:17:45 AM
Since you guys are talking about the watermelon v. tea thing, I'm curious about something: where was the first mention of "iced tea"? It was a police report, yeah?

More than one report. Search the document for 'tea' if you want to count them. At least one of the reports has 'ice tea' instead of 'iced tea.'

Quote
I've wondered if there was a reluctance to ID it as "watermelon" for any of a number of reasons.

What are the others?

I don't know why folks don't just call it a 'fruit punch' or 'fruit drink' or the like. I avoid the issue by calling it a 'beverage.'

Quote
I can't really see TM--if he was on the phone with her--saying "yeah I'm gonna get an Arizona Green Tea with Honey and Ginsing." when he could just say "I'm getting a drink hold on."

He mentioned it, he didn't mention it. Wouldn't surprise me one way or the other. Dee Dee might have asked him what he was buying.

Dee Dee, SAO, 4/3, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) 19:32-42
Quote
De la Rionda: I think I already asked you, but let me make sure. He did tell you what he was at the store, that he had gotten some candy or something, and you said iced tea, right?

Dee Dee: Yes.   

Dee Dee hadn't said 'iced tea' in the recorded interview. She said 'some food, and some drink' (4:29-37).

The July 12  evidence release (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf) has a summary of the interview before the recording started (p. 36). It also doesn't say 'iced tea.' It says 'a drink and candy.'
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 02, 2012, 09:28:52 AM
Well that question is cleared up. Onward!
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 02, 2012, 09:39:42 AM
I agree that there are many reasons to suspect Dee Dee was coached. I don't think 'iced tea' is one of them. She could have picked it up from the media, and came to believe it was something Martin told her. Memory research has shown such confabulation to be quite common.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 02, 2012, 10:43:40 AM
Since you guys are talking about the watermelon v. tea thing, I'm curious about something: where was the first mention of "iced tea"? It was a police report, yeah? Even though they (the police) had a picture of the can in their report.

Is that accurate? Not that it has anything to do with DD, I'm just curious.

I've wondered if there was a reluctance to ID it as "watermelon" for any of a number of reasons.

I can't really see TM--if he was on the phone with her--saying "yeah I'm gonna get an Arizona Green Tea with Honey and Ginsing." when he could just say "I'm getting a drink hold on."

But tea...that came from a specific place.

I agree that it's unlikely that Martin would have read off the entire ingredients label to her, but perhaps teens down there call anything with the AriZona brand on it "tea".

Maybe he said "I'm getting Chad some Skittles and I'm getting me some watermelon tea.", or maybe he said "I'm getting Chad some Skittles and I'm getting me some  tea.", and didn't mention the watermelon part.

I suspect that the police saw "AriZona" on the can and just called it iced tea (before this case I didn't know they made anything that wasn't technically tea, even if flavored), and by the time the technicality of the flavor was revealed, most people thought "watermelon, black person, no, don't think I want to go there" for fear of being thought to be bringing up or re-enforcing a stereotype.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 02, 2012, 10:44:27 AM
Wasn't it a Honda Ridgeline? I wouldn't call that a truck (as someone who owns both SUV's and trucks). I frequently refer to my Expedition as the car (and for some bizarre reason it's registered as a "station wagon" while the Explorer a friend owns is registered as an "SUV").

Doesn't a Ridgeline have something that's like a pickup bed, only perhaps smaller?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 02, 2012, 10:49:40 AM
...

If you think that's credible then you have to wonder if TM suspected GZ was possibly reporting him.

Reporting him for what?  Felony Skittles possession?

Regardless of whatever Zimmerman may have thought, there's no evidence Martin was doing anything wrong or had any need to fear the police.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 02, 2012, 10:53:58 AM

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Ridgeline) on Honda Ridgeline.

Looks like a car to me.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 02, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
Reporting him for what?  Felony Skittles possession?

Regardless of whatever Zimmerman may have thought, there's no evidence Martin was doing anything wrong or had any need to fear the police.

That kind of begs the question: Why would TM run from someone sitting in a truck and talking on the phone? Even if GZ was also watching him? Not exactly dangerous. And why wouldn't he call 911 if he thought there was a skinhead pedophile stalker in the neighborhood? Didn't he care about the other small skittle loving children in the neighborhood?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 02, 2012, 11:11:09 AM
I would say that Dee Dee did tell to run at some point. That point was at 7:11 and change.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 11:15:32 AM
Doesn't a Ridgeline have something that's like a pickup bed, only perhaps smaller?

Yes.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 11:17:03 AM
I agree that it's unlikely that Martin would have read off the entire ingredients label to her, but perhaps teens down there call anything with the AriZona brand on it "tea".

Maybe he said "I'm getting Chad some Skittles and I'm getting me some watermelon tea.", or maybe he said "I'm getting Chad some Skittles and I'm getting me some  tea.", and didn't mention the watermelon part.

I suspect that the police saw "AriZona" on the can and just called it iced tea (before this case I didn't know they made anything that wasn't technically tea, even if flavored), and by the time the technicality of the flavor was revealed, most people thought "watermelon, black person, no, don't think I want to go there" for fear of being thought to be bringing up or re-enforcing a stereotype.

I'm glad you said it that--because it's one of the questions I had. I didn't bring it up because of the PC factor and because it really doesn't matter--except if we're going to question the accuracy of the SPD, if they can't get fairly simple details right.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 11:18:54 AM
Reporting him for what?  Felony Skittles possession?

Regardless of whatever Zimmerman may have thought, there's no evidence Martin was doing anything wrong or had any need to fear the police.

LOL. You don't want us to assume anything about TM but you'll assume thoughts about GZ.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 11:19:27 AM
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Ridgeline) on Honda Ridgeline.

Looks like a car to me.

From your link:

Class    Mid-size/full-size sport utility truck
Body style    4-door truck
Layout    Transversely-mounted front engine, four-wheel drive

 8) ;D
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 11:21:03 AM
It's pertinent to her statement, but perhaps you are right.

Part of it is. It appeared we were heading off toward a discussion of Watermelon Cocktail etc and moving away from what she said or heard.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 02, 2012, 11:29:28 AM
From your link:

Class    Mid-size/full-size sport utility truck

Was it Dee Dee or Martin who was looking up the vehicle on the internet?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 11:37:03 AM
Was it Dee Dee or Martin who was looking up the vehicle on the internet?

I don't really care what either of them called it, or even what GZ called it. I posted earlier about how I refer to my Ford Expedition as a car--and how according to my state DMV it's a "station wagon" even though it's built on a truck frame.

I just thought it was funny that you posted a link to wikipedia and the first thing they say about it is "truck" twice.

Wasn't trying to poop on you personally at all.

I kind of thought the larger point is that car, truck, suv...it's all subjective and doesn't really matter.


 ???
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 02, 2012, 11:43:37 AM
Wasn't trying to poop on you personally at all.

I wasn't taking it personally. I was just proud of having a snappy comeback.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 11:45:27 AM
I wasn't taking it personally. I was just proud of having a snappy comeback.

It was a good one--got me  >:(

 ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 02, 2012, 11:50:29 AM
I think the problem is we've exhausted the possibilities of the evidence released so far and are just being silly now. We need some new evidence to talk about.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 02, 2012, 12:13:07 PM
I think exploring the evidence is a challenging job that calls for occasional comic relief.

I was just thinking that if Dee Dee's story is a complete fabrication, maybe they were really spending the time debating what to call the vehicle. Maybe Martin thought it looked like a car, like I did. And Dee Dee said, "No, baby. Sounds like a Honda Ridgeline. Thats a truck."
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 02, 2012, 01:11:36 PM
LOL. You don't want us to assume anything about TM but you'll assume thoughts about GZ.

My memory ain't what it used to be and it was never that good to begin with.

What thoughts have I assumed about Zimmerman?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 02, 2012, 01:18:35 PM
I think exploring the evidence is a challenging job that calls for occasional comic relief.

I was just thinking that if Dee Dee's story is a complete fabrication, maybe they were really spending the time debating what to call the vehicle. Maybe Martin thought it looked like a car, like I did. And Dee Dee said, "No, baby. Sounds like a Honda Ridgeline. Thats a truck."

Actually, you've just explained why Martin came back and circled the truck, to be sure if it was a truck or a car.  He didn't care about Zimmerman at all, he just wanted to win the argument.

And of course when it turned out she was right and he was wrong, he ran back into the dark to lure Zimmerman out, muttering to himself "MF'er, I'll teach you to drive a vehicle of deceptive appearance", and when Zimmerman came back through the "T" he rushed out and just before his fist hit Zimmerman's nose, he shouted "This is for you and the truck you rode in on".
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 02, 2012, 01:34:40 PM
"This is for you and the truck you rode in on".

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's the way to build to a comic crescendo.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 02:30:48 PM
Actually, you've just explained why Martin came back and circled the truck, to be sure if it was a truck or a car.  He didn't care about Zimmerman at all, he just wanted to win the argument.

And of course when it turned out she was right and he was wrong, he ran back into the dark to lure Zimmerman out, muttering to himself "MF'er, I'll teach you to drive a vehicle of deceptive appearance", and when Zimmerman came back through the "T" he rushed out and just before his fist hit Zimmerman's nose, he shouted "This is for you and the truck you rode in on".

Post of the day, easy. Probably post of the week. If we had clappy smileies I'd use a half dozen.

I like that "deceptive appearance". Gold.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 02, 2012, 02:32:53 PM
My memory ain't what it used to be and it was never that good to begin with.

What thoughts have I assumed about Zimmerman?

I don't remember now exactly and am too lazy to go back a page. Basically I guess I said it wrong anyway. What I was trying to say is that you seem like you're willing to try very hard to explain away all sorts of things about TM--but at the same time you keep going over and over every little detail that GZ says said or did.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 02, 2012, 03:59:02 PM
I don't remember now exactly and am too lazy to go back a page. Basically I guess I said it wrong anyway. What I was trying to say is that you seem like you're willing to try very hard to explain away all sorts of things about TM--but at the same time you keep going over and over every little detail that GZ says said or did.

Two judges out driving in the country.  One looks over at a field and says "Look at those sheep! They've just been shorn!"

The other, older, wiser judge looks and says "They appear to have been.  On this side."

That's how I try to approach figuring out what happened that night and why (and I'm still working on that and haven't taken a side), and it's why I've posted so many times in so many places that Zimmerman didn't call 911, it was just the non-emergency line to the police, that the calls from the past that have been mentioned covered a period of 8 years, not 1, that he didn't run right out and get that second passport the day after the shooting, but has had it for 8 years, that his father was only a magistrate in a different state without the political pull in Florida to get a parking ticket fixed, that Martin's knuckles are undamaged, that he was not out there in the middle of the night, that the police did not let Zimmerman keep his gun the whole time or give it back to him later that night, and I'm sure there are some others I can't recall at the moment, and I've probably been less than gracious on occasion in pointing out that someone had misstated the height and/or weight of one or the other or both.


If you really think I'm all pro-Martin and anti-Zimmerman, post a bunch of stuff about George that's either flat-out wrong or just plain ridiculous, and see how I react.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 02, 2012, 05:05:59 PM
I think exploring the evidence is a challenging job that calls for occasional comic relief.

I was just thinking that if Dee Dee's story is a complete fabrication, maybe they were really spending the time debating what to call the vehicle. Maybe Martin thought it looked like a car, like I did. And Dee Dee said, "No, baby. Sounds like a Honda Ridgeline. Thats a truck."

LOL!  You all can call me crazy but I am from the south.  Truck owners here go batty if you call their truck a car.  It is all about the classification!   Cross-over owners are befuddled messes.  IMO!   ;D

My point being, well... if there is one, is that Dee Dee could have been "briefed" on GZ's statement since he calls it a car, too.  It isn't like she ran to the police the next day.  Or the day after, or the day after that even...   she didn't go to the SAO until April 2nd.  She had at least a week with the members of Crup's team before that.

Oh, well.  The responses were classic.

(psst-it is a truck!)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Jack203 on August 02, 2012, 09:47:09 PM
Two judges out driving in the country.  One looks over at a field and says "Look at those sheep! They've just been shorn!"

The other, older, wiser judge looks and says "They appear to have been.  On this side."

That's how I try to approach figuring out what happened that night and why (and I'm still working on that and haven't taken a side), and it's why I've posted so many times in so many places that Zimmerman didn't call 911, it was just the non-emergency line to the police, that the calls from the past that have been mentioned covered a period of 8 years, not 1, that he didn't run right out and get that second passport the day after the shooting, but has had it for 8 years, that his father was only a magistrate in a different state without the political pull in Florida to get a parking ticket fixed, that Martin's knuckles are undamaged, that he was not out there in the middle of the night, that the police did not let Zimmerman keep his gun the whole time or give it back to him later that night, and I'm sure there are some others I can't recall at the moment, and I've probably been less than gracious on occasion in pointing out that someone had misstated the height and/or weight of one or the other or both.


If you really think I'm all pro-Martin and anti-Zimmerman, post a bunch of stuff about George that's either flat-out wrong or just plain ridiculous, and see how I react.

Don't pretend you're objective.  Just because you can dispute Trayvonites and their conspiracy theories does not count.

"that Martin's knuckles are undamaged"

Trayvon had a 1/4 inch cut on the outside of his ring finger between his upper knuckles.  The exact kind of injury one would get for punching something or someone....very hard.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf

pg 7
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: spectator on August 03, 2012, 01:56:00 AM
Probably a mistake on the police report that went viral.

That the news media kept repeating ICE TEA is one thing. That Dee Dee, who was talking to TM that night says he bought Iced tea, is another. Watch the 7-11 video. TM does not dawdle at the cooler section at all. He walks
straight back to where the ARIZONA products were located, grabs what he came in for. (Watermelon Punch-tastes like Hawaiin Punch by the way). To me the fact that Dee Dee said TM bought tea would indicate coaching or influence of news reports)


Exactly and nicely put
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 03, 2012, 02:10:42 AM
Don't pretend you're objective.

I try to be.  I may not always succeed, but it's not because I want either one of them to be "in the wrong", I just want to figure out what happened, and I have trouble with things that don't seem to add up or make sense.  Maybe I lack the intelligence for them to.


 Just because you can dispute Trayvonites and their conspiracy theories does not count.



If you really think I'm all pro-Martin and anti-Zimmerman, post a bunch of stuff about George that's either flat-out wrong or just plain ridiculous, and see how I react.


"that Martin's knuckles are undamaged"

Trayvon had a 1/4 inch cut on the outside of his ring finger between his upper knuckles.  The exact kind of injury one would get for punching something or someone....very hard.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf

pg 7


It's not a cut, it's an abrasion, and it's not on the knuckle.

Of course I'm usually pointing this out to someone who has insisted that all of his knuckles were busted open and bleeding.  In other words, an error as great as the anti-Zimmerman fanatics' insistance that his father was a Florida Supreme Court judge with the governor in his pocket.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: spectator on August 03, 2012, 04:14:30 AM
I think the problem is we've exhausted the possibilities of the evidence released so far and are just being silly now. We need some new evidence to talk about.

I know, it would be nice to spot something big that's been overlooked.
 
Anyhow if were to believe DeeDee's account...  she makes a pretty big claim when hearing GZ breathing hard, George's brisk walk or jog was very brief and he had a good rest by the time he hangs up, he sounds just fine when he ends it with "thanks".

It must have been a good lung pumper after that for her to hear it in the background. ;)

I wonder if the 2 running shadows statement helped that along.

If something like that actually happened imagine George's luck the evidence trail migrated back to the "T."

The totality of her comments are too convenient to be Believed.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 03, 2012, 05:09:55 AM


It's not a cut, it's an abrasion, and it's not on the knuckle.

Of course I'm usually pointing this out to someone who has insisted that all of his knuckles were busted open and bleeding.  In other words, an error as great as the anti-Zimmerman fanatics' insistance that his father was a Florida Supreme Court judge with the governor in his pocket.

It's an abrasion, and it's between the top two knuckles. Exactly where you'd expect to find an injury if you punched someone hard and connected with a hard surface (like a skull).

When you stop patting yourself on the back for being so objective, make a fist and look at it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 03, 2012, 06:10:53 AM
It's an abrasion, and it's between the top two knuckles. Exactly where you'd expect to find an injury if you punched someone hard and connected with a hard surface (like a skull).

I'd expect an abrasion to come from sliding relative to a rough surface, like sandpaper, or a sidewalk.  In other words, from the skin having been abraded.

When you stop patting yourself on the back for being so objective, make a fist and look at it.

I did, actually, and it looks like the middle finger would be the one to make the greatest contact if I punched someone in the nose, not the ring finger.


But let me see if I have this straight.

If someone says Martin's finger was cut, and I say, no, it was abraded, that's secret code for "he never punched Zimmerman" instead of it just being me pointing out one of the many factual errors about this case that continue to be made?

Even though I've never, anywhere, in my entire life expressed an opinion about various types of injuries to a hand proving or disproving that the hand had been used to punch someone, so that the most reasonable interpretation of my saying he had an abrasion is that, having seen the autopsy, I believe he had an abrasion?

I continue to be amazed at how both sides (of those who have taken sides) in this case can find anti-whichever-one-is-their-guy bias in almost anything and everything in a manner that rivals the ability of those in the story to have seen the emperor's new clothes.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on August 03, 2012, 07:17:05 AM
I'd suspect Martin's injury to his knuckle wasn't the result of hitting GZ in the face or head.  Punching someone in the face doesn't cause skin injuries to the hand doing the hitting unless he caught some teeth.  The most likely injury from punching someone would be a break from not doing it properly, but the face is fleshy and not prone to leave any marks on an opponents hands and I don't think TM exclusively used his hands throughout the event.

I think TM threw a variety of strikes, punches and elbows.  I'd say probably only a few landed squarely enough to cause much damage, but that doesn't mean he didn't throw quite a few.  They key issues to GZ's injuries and how he might have felt defenseless would be if the first punch was indeed the one that broke his nose and whether the head injuries were from being pounded into the sidewalk.  I see no evidence to contradict that the first punch was the one to break his nose and the injuries to the back of his head clearly seem to be the result of something hard contacting it.  His head injuries are not abrasions, but are cuts from being split open as well as a substantial knot on the side of his head.   The police in their report said that they injuries were moderately consistent with someone fearing for their life, so the nature and depth of GZ's injuries don't seem to be an issue for his use of deadly force.

Not sure what this has to do with Dee Dee as she isn't going to be testifying to anything about the fight.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 03, 2012, 12:00:44 PM
The last time I suggested an off-topic discussion be moved to another thread, the response included name-calling.

A few days later, the moderator deleted the off-topic comments.

Thanks to Jack203 for pointing out the autopsy drawing.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 03, 2012, 12:40:01 PM
I'd suspect Martin's injury to his knuckle wasn't the result of hitting GZ in the face or head.  Punching someone in the face doesn't cause skin injuries to the hand doing the hitting unless he caught some teeth.  The most likely injury from punching someone would be a break from not doing it properly, but the face is fleshy and not prone to leave any marks on an opponents hands and I don't think TM exclusively used his hands throughout the event.

I think TM threw a variety of strikes, punches and elbows.  I'd say probably only a few landed squarely enough to cause much damage, but that doesn't mean he didn't throw quite a few.  They key issues to GZ's injuries and how he might have felt defenseless would be if the first punch was indeed the one that broke his nose and whether the head injuries were from being pounded into the sidewalk.  I see no evidence to contradict that the first punch was the one to break his nose and the injuries to the back of his head clearly seem to be the result of something hard contacting it.  His head injuries are not abrasions, but are cuts from being split open as well as a substantial knot on the side of his head.   The police in their report said that they injuries were moderately consistent with someone fearing for their life, so the nature and depth of GZ's injuries don't seem to be an issue for his use of deadly force.

Not sure what this has to do with Dee Dee as she isn't going to be testifying to anything about the fight.

If they choose to call her, there are a couple of references to a fight in her statements.  She started to say  something that "Trayon bump-Trayvon was bumped"  She said that she heard "pushing noises" and the "Get Off Get Off."

Kind of paraphrasing as I have to leave for work.  Memory and all.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: whitecap333 on August 03, 2012, 03:29:37 PM
Anyone see Hannity's interview of Daryl Parks, Crump's partner the other night?  Hannity pressed him pretty hard on just how everything "went down" inside the complex that evening.  Park's didn't breath a hint of Dee Dee.  Kind of surprising, since they created such a media sensation with her a while back.  Makes me wonder if they've decided that, on balance, they'll be better off without her.  Something else that surprised me was Park's concession that Martin was indeed on top of Zimmerman when he was shot, saying he "should have been" since Zimmerman was armed.  I surmise we are invited to conclude that Martin was trying to disarm Zimmerman all the while, a la Dooley.  Going to be hard to explain how Zimmerman got those lacerations on the back of his noggin, on flat concrete, on this theory.

I always got abrasions on or near my knuckles only when striking someone in the teeth.  I think swelling to Zimmerman's lips was noted.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 03, 2012, 04:12:39 PM
Anyone see Hannity's interview of Daryl Parks, Crump's partner the other night?

It was discussed earlier. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2085.msg97896.html#msg97896)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 03, 2012, 05:20:53 PM
Please keep comments here to Dee Dee's statements and Dee Dee as a witness. Thanks.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: whitecap333 on August 03, 2012, 05:26:56 PM
Is Park's omission of Dee Dee from his narrative of events on topic?   That wasn't discussed in the media thread.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 03, 2012, 06:20:28 PM
Is Park's omission of Dee Dee from his narrative of events on topic?   That wasn't discussed in the media thread.

It would be more appropriate as a new thread in the Martin Family and Team Crump section, since it is about what a lawyer in Crump's office said.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 03, 2012, 07:30:00 PM
I'd suspect Martin's injury to his knuckle wasn't the result of hitting GZ in the face or head.  Punching someone in the face doesn't cause skin injuries to the hand doing the hitting unless he caught some teeth.  The most likely injury from punching someone would be a break from not doing it properly, but the face is fleshy and not prone to leave any marks on an opponents hands and I don't think TM exclusively used his hands throughout the event.

I think TM threw a variety of strikes, punches and elbows.  I'd say probably only a few landed squarely enough to cause much damage, but that doesn't mean he didn't throw quite a few.  They key issues to GZ's injuries and how he might have felt defenseless would be if the first punch was indeed the one that broke his nose and whether the head injuries were from being pounded into the sidewalk.  I see no evidence to contradict that the first punch was the one to break his nose and the injuries to the back of his head clearly seem to be the result of something hard contacting it.  His head injuries are not abrasions, but are cuts from being split open as well as a substantial knot on the side of his head.   The police in their report said that they injuries were moderately consistent with someone fearing for their life, so the nature and depth of GZ's injuries don't seem to be an issue for his use of deadly force.

Not sure what this has to do with Dee Dee as she isn't going to be testifying to anything about the fight.

Actually you're quite wrong on the issue of hand damage from faces. Faces are fairly thin skin laid over solid skull. It's a good way to break a hand.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 03, 2012, 09:49:06 PM

I spot-checked the JusticeQuest transcript (http://www.justicequest.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1578053&postcount=7) of Dee Dee's SAO interview. It has the obvious error I described here, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2103.msg98181.html#msg98181) and I think another major error right after that.

The first is inexcusable. Even de la Rionda seemed to realize that 'right by his *ss' didn't make sense in context, and asked Dee Dee if that's what she meant. She said 'no', and explained what she did mean. A transcriber has to be in a trance to miss that.

Dee Dee repeated that part of the story, substituting 'right by his father's house', so it was clear that what she said first was 'right by his dad's.'

The first time I listened I missed the 'd' sounds also, but they aren't really hard to hear. It just takes attention.

The next part is 8:47-49. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu)

Transcribed by JusticeQuest.
Quote
he ru’, he go’ keep ru’ ’til hi’ dad house.

I don't usually drop consonants when transcribing, but this time I'll do it so the differences will all be substance, not style.
Quote
Tell 'im keep runnin', keep running to his daddy's house.

Yes, I think Dee Dee drops the 'g' from the first 'running' and not the second. I don't care. I think fussing about such things is a time-wasting distraction, which is why I normally don't.

This part of the transcript, which I think is clearly inaccurate, is letter for letter the same as the one I criticized on another thread. Its author is one Mike McDaniel, (http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-11-the-dee-dee-interview-kaboom/) a person clearly biased against Dee Dee. Is JusticeQuest using his transcript?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 04, 2012, 02:47:17 AM
Anyone see Hannity's interview of Daryl Parks, Crump's partner the other night?  Hannity pressed him pretty hard on just how everything "went down" inside the complex that evening.  Park's didn't breath a hint of Dee Dee.  Kind of surprising, since they created such a media sensation with her a while back.  Makes me wonder if they've decided that, on balance, they'll be better off without her.  Something else that surprised me was Park's concession that Martin was indeed on top of Zimmerman when he was shot, saying he "should have been" since Zimmerman was armed.  I surmise we are invited to conclude that Martin was trying to disarm Zimmerman all the while, a la Dooley.  Going to be hard to explain how Zimmerman got those lacerations on the back of his noggin, on flat concrete, on this theory.

I always got abrasions on or near my knuckles only when striking someone in the teeth.  I think swelling to Zimmerman's lips was noted.

Unless their teeth were made of sandpaper, I'd think it more likely that they would have cut your skin rather than abraded it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 04, 2012, 02:49:32 AM
I'm pretty sure JusticeQuest falls into the "has a specific point of view" category which may affect their impartiality.

They also seem to have a target demographic to which they restrict those signing up for user accounts.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 04, 2012, 07:04:17 AM
I'm pretty sure JusticeQuest falls into the "has a specific point of view" category which may affect their impartiality.

They also seem to have a target demographic to which they restrict those signing up for user accounts.

Oh my yes.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on August 04, 2012, 07:19:13 AM
If they choose to call her, there are a couple of references to a fight in her statements.  She started to say  something that "Trayon bump-Trayvon was bumped"  She said that she heard "pushing noises" and the "Get Off Get Off."

Kind of paraphrasing as I have to leave for work.  Memory and all.

Objection, goes to speculation.  No way she could discern that TM was bumped.  She could testify to noises heard and to the "little bit of get off or something".  She won't be able to testify about anything related to injuries or how they were obtained during the fight.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: whitecap333 on August 05, 2012, 01:23:01 AM
Anyone believe the prosecution will try to build its "theory of the case" around Dee Dee?  Will they urge the jury to buy into this "chase" up and down the complex, or just try to do a little "cherry picking"?  How do you finesse her near three weeks of silence after learning that some "creepy," "crazy" person had murdered Trayvon?  If she spent 5 or 6 hours on the phone with him that day, she must have known he was in Sanford.  Would you risk her becoming unraveled under examination?  O'Mara can be expected, through discovery, to aggressively explore the possibility she was "coached."  If he hits "paydirt," there will be egg on many faces.  So what do you do with her?  Because without her, there would seem to be no credible evidence of a "chase."  But "dropping" her (as Crump may very well have done already) will certainly set tongues to wagging.
Title: Will She Testify?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 05, 2012, 07:10:34 AM
If the prosecution drops Dee Dee, and Zimmerman walks (acquittal or hung jury), forever after critics will say he would have been convicted if the prosecution had just used Dee Dee.

I don't think the prosecutors believe they have much chance of winning. I think spreading the blame for probable failure is a priority.

If the prosecution doesn't call her, would the defense? I think that's risky. She could blow up in their faces too.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: whitecap333 on August 05, 2012, 07:22:37 AM
I don't know beans about criminal procedure, but seems like I've heard that O'Mara will be permitted to take the depositions of witnesses.  That will be the "moment of truth."  I wonder if attorney client privilege will prevent him from deposing whoever it was in Crump's office that "debriefed" her?  Seems like he doesn't claim to represent her, but perhaps he did at the time.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 05, 2012, 07:27:26 AM
I don't know beans about criminal procedure, but seems like I've heard that O'Mara will be permitted to take the depositions of witnesses.  That will be the "moment of truth."  I wonder if attorney client privilege will prevent him from deposing whoever it was in Crump's office that "debriefed" her?  Seems like he doesn't claim to represent her, but perhaps he did at the time.

Why would he need to? I'm not even certain O'Mara needs to depose her (although I'm sure there are good reasons for it that I'm overlooking), I think her version is already out there and he could just as easily impeach her--or destroy her, if he felt like it-- on the stand using her own words (all of them. Even ones not in evidence yet that we can't talk about).

But I really don't know why you're even wondering about him deposing Crump or whoever. Not trying to argue, I really don't see it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 05, 2012, 07:30:37 AM
There's also a 'work product' privilege. That would cover the lawyers interactions with Dee Dee as part of their work for the Martins.
Title: Re: Will She Testify?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 05, 2012, 07:31:30 AM
If the prosecution drops Dee Dee, and Zimmerman walks (acquittal or hung jury), forever after critics will say he would have been convicted if the prosecution had just used Dee Dee.

I don't think the prosecutors believe they have much chance of winning. I think spreading the blame for probable failure is a priority.

If the prosecution doesn't call her, would the defense? I think that's risky. She could blow up in their faces too.

It's interesting. I wonder if they might come out with a statement to the effect that her testimony has been too tainted by news coverage or something else along the same lines as a way to cop out?

It depends on how serious the prosecution is, doesn't it? If this whole thing has been a politically motivated stall tactic as some people have suggested, then they might not call her. If they really mean it, then I can't see how they couldn't not have her on the stand.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: whitecap333 on August 05, 2012, 10:00:06 AM
I think O'Mara absolutely has to take her deposition.  Why would he want to wait until she's on the stand to find out what she's going to say?  If she implodes, during her deposition, that could have a major impact on how the public views the integrity with which these charges were brought.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 05, 2012, 10:17:50 AM
I think O'Mara absolutely has to take her deposition.  Why would he want to wait until she's on the stand to find out what she's going to say?  If she implodes, during her deposition, that could have a major impact on how the public views the integrity with which these charges were brought.

If she implodes during her deposition the public might never know about it, at least not like watching it on live court tv.

She's already been interviewed. A version is already out there. OTOH, there's a lot of other stuff out there that O'Mara would be a fool not to already have copies of--twitter and other social media stuff that The Hostess doesn't like us to talk about, all of which O'Mara could use to impeach her on the stand.

I don't know.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: whitecap333 on August 05, 2012, 10:39:58 AM
I will see to it that part of the public hears about it, and I will have numerous helpers.  You suggesting that O'Mara should be content with De la Rionda's half-hearted interview?  Seriously?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 05, 2012, 11:00:36 AM
I will see to it that part of the public hears about it, and I will have numerous helpers.  You suggesting that O'Mara should be content with De la Rionda's half-hearted interview?  Seriously?


Numerous? Wow. I'm awed.

If you're not going to read what I post, that's fine--I don't blame you. But if you're going to make up things I didn't say to respond to--I'd rather you didn't, and I didn't say O'Mara should be content with DLR's interview.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 05, 2012, 11:10:02 AM
If she implodes during her deposition the public might never know about it, at least not like watching it on live court tv.

She can implode twice.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 05, 2012, 11:14:15 AM
She can implode twice.

She does badly during the deposition they have time to coach hell out of her or figure some way to get her original interview read into evidence (yes that part's unlikely, but would you put it past Corey et al?).

Like I said--we'll know eventually.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 05, 2012, 11:34:35 AM
She does badly during the deposition they have time to coach hell out of her

If she says anything different on the stand than she did in the deposition, the deposition will be admissible to impeach her.

O'Mara has nothing to lose and much to gain by deposing her.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: whitecap333 on August 05, 2012, 11:49:31 AM
Just for the record, when I ask someone a question, I'm not necessarily trying to put words in their mouths.  It's just part of my unpolished conversational style. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 05, 2012, 12:31:53 PM
The Court has protected DeeDee's identity so far. Please refrain from discussing her possible twitter accounts. If either side indicates an intent to introduce them, and they are confirmed to be her's, we can discuss it then. For now, please stick to her two statements and phone records.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 05, 2012, 04:53:31 PM
Does anyone have an idea where DeeDee was the during that evenings phone calls? Are there witnesses that verify that claim?

She presents an unusual conversation that goes only one way. Why is TM's standing under overhead  such an important subject that it requires a detailed description?

The hours of conversation  must have been banal beyond relief. Otherwise how would  the mention of a particular  details of some temporary covering be significant enough to recall a month after the fact. Did TM seek shelter under any other covering during the rainy day jaunt?
What subjects were actually the basis of hours of phone conversation.

I don't believe that DeeDee would find that remarkable enough to remember as a 'mail room' ( unless she had been there before and had a reference - which I doubt)

Why would DeeDee's helpers feel that  detail was important enough to be added  DeeDee's story. I can understand why they added the hoodie references but...>

Could some one else have borrowed DeeDee's phone?


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 05, 2012, 05:05:37 PM
Does anyone have an idea where DeeDee was the during that evenings phone calls? Are there witnesses that verify that claim?

She presents an unusual conversation that goes only one way. Why is TM's standing under overhead  such an important subject that it requires a detailed description?

The hours of conversation  must have been banal beyond relief. Otherwise how would  the mention of a particular  details of some temporary covering be significant enough to recall a month after the fact. Did TM seek shelter under any other covering during the rainy day jaunt?
What subjects were actually the basis of hours of phone conversation.

I don't believe that DeeDee would find that remarkable enough to remember as a 'mail room' ( unless she had been there before and had a reference - which I doubt)

Why would DeeDee's helpers feel that  detail was important enough to be added  DeeDee's story. I can understand why they added the hoodie references but...

Could some one else have borrowed DeeDee's phone?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 05, 2012, 07:18:44 PM
DeeDee doesn't use the word "mail" in her description to Crump. After saying it began to rain, at 3:40:00-2:43:60 she says something that's not completely intelligible to me, but sounds sort of like, "so he went to the little, like the little apartment." The underlined words are the hardest to understand. I would appreciate someone with better ears than mine listening to it and giving their opinion.

I again recommend downloading the free program Audacity. Among many other useful features, you can select a region and loop the replay.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 05, 2012, 07:31:59 PM
DeeDee doesn't use the word "mail" in her description to Crump. After saying it began to rain, at 3:40:00-2:43:60 she says something that's not completely intelligible to me, but sounds sort of like, "so he went to the little, like the little apartment." The underlined words are the hardest to understand. I would appreciate someone with better ears than mine listening to it and giving their opinion.

I again recommend downloading the free program Audacity. Among many other useful features, you can select a region and loop the replay.

Funny how it worked its way into her subsequent  De La F. interview
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 05, 2012, 07:46:59 PM
I, of course, meant 3:40:00-3:43:60.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 06, 2012, 02:19:32 AM
Why would DeeDee's helpers feel that  detail was important enough to be added  DeeDee's story.

Maybe the PR people recommended that there be a specific geographical reference, to give the narrative some weight, some anchor to physical reality. Without the mail shelter, there is no such reference between the 7-11 and the Green home.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 02:28:21 PM
- she says TM is now out of breath (if he started running from the T and sprinted he would reach the back of BG's town home in maybe 10-15 seconds and if he was at a full sprint for that long, he'd be out of breath for maybe 30 seconds.)

1) From the T to BG's home there are 400ft.  It would take more than 15sec to run that distance.  It would actually be closer to 40sec as TM wasn't dressed for a sprint (he had a baggy pant).

2) You're assuming that he started running from the T.  He may as well as started running while on TTL or anywhere in between TTL and the T.  Indeed, GZ doesn't state TM's direction until after he exited his truck.  That gives ~7 seconds which could easily be translated as 70ft from the T.

3) You're also assuming that TM ran straight home.  DeeDee's statement is pretty clear about him hiding.  That's what she says when she states that he lowered his voice for a little while and then resumed walking home before being "cornered" a "couple" of minute later.

4) Finally you assume TM was an athlete.  Just take his height and his weight and you'll see he was a skinny kid.  Not a muscular kid.  He was probably not exercising much.  If on top of that he was used to smoking, that may not have helped him running.

- she says he's now by his fathers house.  (makes sense as it wouldn't have taken him too long to run from the T or area where Z was parked to reach his fathers house)

She actually says "He said he ain’t gonna run, 'cause he said he's right by his father’s house."
But she immediately adds "So, and in a couple minutes, he said the man’s following him again, he’s behind him.".  The meaning of "right by" and "couple of minutes" are relative.  For example, TM could have been  just 90sec walk away from home.   This is rather open to interpretation.

- after a brief explanation that he ran "from the back" and reiteration that he's by his fathers house, she says he "started walking back".  (its absolutely amazing to me that BDLR doesn't ask for any clarification of this statement as she has said he ran from Z and got to his dads house and is now walking back.  So if Z was behind him coming towards his fathers house, how can he be walking back towards him and be followed/chased by Z at the same time?)

That's because this is not what she said.  To sum it up, she said that 1) TM ran, 2) TM hids from GZ for a little while (TM lost GZ, his voice went low, she asked him to keep on running), & 3) TM resumes walking (He decided that he would walk because he lost GZ and he was right by his dad's).
The timing is key here and is still open to interpretation.  For example, assuming TM hid for 2minutes and GZ walked south for 2min on a different path like RVC, they could easily have swapped positions with GZ being further south than TM.
We can't claim DeeDee lies on this because she makes no statement of location as she is not a eyewitness and she has no knowledge of the  floorplan in the complex.  The only way to know would be either a eye witness of either GZ's or TM's whereabouts, or TM's & GZ's cellphone had a GPS recording there whereabouts.  We'll know after all evidences are out.

- after a couple of minutes, he says the man is following behind him again, she tells him to run but he says he isn't going to run and she says he can't run cause he's still out of breath (now its possible this could still fit into a possible narrative if Z went around the front of the buildings and came back through one of the gaps to reacquire TM, {...}

That's basically what I was replying above.

{...} but does it make any sense at all that TM ran to his dads house, is out of breath, but decides to start walking back towards the T but he's still so out of breath and breathing hard that he can't run again after a couple minute rest?  We are supposed to believe that, but the "obese" GZ is supposedly chasing after TM for a couple of minutes while on the NEN call and is talking plain as anything?   Is TM really going to walk back to the T away from his fathers house if hes that scared and out of breath that he's still huffing and puffing several minutes later?)

TM physical shape may come under light.  At this point, what we've seen is that he played football and that he is skinny.  not enough to judge how much tiring it would be for him to run.
In any case, without knowing the path he ran, it is impossible to judge how tired TM could be and if DeeDee lies on this exact statement.


- she then goes into the exchange of words and about how GZ's voice is deep, angry and out of breath (doesn't seem to me to match the tone of his voice and how he was talking to the dispatcher, but I guess he could have made his voice sound mean when talking to TM.  Not sure how he made it deeper).

Well you're talking about two different moment.  GZ's voice changes a lot in the NEN call and even during interviews.  In the NEN call GZ goes from assertive at the beginning, to scared between the 1:00 & 1:30 marks, to angry right before TM starts running, to absent, he drifts in resignation and suddenly get all excited when he asks to be called.  During interrogation, he sounds assertive when a recounts his story and has a very low voice when police points to inconsistencies and the contrast between the two is very sharp. 

In any case, what DeeDee hears that is not told by TM is probably the only thing that matters.  Hearsays are usually not accepted in court.  So, what matters is what she heard TM & GZ say to each other, what the ton of the voices, the background noise.  For example, she stated that she heard the phone on the grass before the line went dead.  It may sound like nothing but since the found the phone dead on the grass it gives some level of credence to her story, most knowing that she made her statements before the the first discovery release.  So, it may come down to GZ's story in which TM said "You have a problem?"  against DeeDee's in which he says "What are you following me for?". 

After she finishes her narrative, BDLR asks follow up questions trying to get details and it ends up getting very confusing about what happened when.  Overall, the part of the narrative I reference above from just before running to the two meeting and exchanging words, fits pretty well with the narrative Z tells.  The one discrepancy would be that TM tells her Z is following him again.  This part gets enhanced/modified a bit when BDLR tries to get more detail as in followup Dee Dee relays that TM says "he's right behind me" and begins to whisper, which is right before TM starts with the "why are you following me".   I think its safe to assume TM's whispering was to avoid being seen or found (depending on your narrative) and if he's whispering, its more likely than not that Z doesn't see him or know where he is.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 02:44:28 PM
His head injuries are not abrasions, but are cuts from being split open.

It's written abrasion in the discovery.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 08, 2012, 02:53:40 PM
Very good Tchoupi,
Police Chief Bill Lee seemed to think TM had started to walk home
when GZ reappeared at the T. TM then turned around to "mouth off"
as Lee put it. Do you think the timing  was fateful that night?
TM thought he'd lost GZ and left his hiding place just as GZ
came back to the T?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 08, 2012, 02:53:47 PM
It's written abrasion in the discovery.

And yet were called

" Scalp Lacerations: No sutures needed given well-approximated skin margins. Continue to clean with soap and water dally. We discussed the red flag symptoms that would warrant Imaging given the type of assault he sustained. Given the type of trauma, we discussed that it Is imperative he be seen with his Psychologist for evaluation."*

by, you know, a medical professional.

*Zimmerman medical report pdf.


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 08, 2012, 02:57:57 PM
Certainly more lacerated looking than "road rash" looking.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 02:58:07 PM
Very good Tchoupi,
Police Chief Bill Lee seemed to think TM had started to walk home
when GZ reappeared at the T. TM then turned around to "mouth off"
as Lee put it. Do you think the timing  was fateful that night?
TM thought he'd lost GZ and left his hiding place just as GZ
came back to the T?

If this were being written as a screenplay, the string of co-incidences necessary to make it work would probably be rejected as entirely too improbable.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 08, 2012, 02:59:13 PM
It only has to come together once. :D
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Juan on August 08, 2012, 03:21:03 PM
It's written abrasion in the discovery.

It's not what the paramedic O'Rourke said. He said Zimmerman had what looked to be a fractured nose. Bleeding was under control, and he had lacerations on the back of his head. He was covered with a significant amount of blood (45% of face & head). 

Same for paramedic Brandy who said he had cuts and abrasions on his face, his nose looked like it had some damage & he had a cut on the back of his head. The laceration to the back of the head was an inch by a half inch wide. It was straight up and down on the back of his head.

They told the cops he’s going to need to go to the hospital to get some stitches. Abrasions only bleed minimally & don't require stitches.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: ding7777 on August 08, 2012, 03:32:11 PM
It's written abrasion in the discovery.

Singleton said they "appeared" to be abrasions 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 08, 2012, 04:02:06 PM
4) Finally you assume TM was an athlete.  Just take his height and his weight and you'll see he was a skinny kid.  Not a muscular kid.  He was probably not exercising much.  If on top of that he was used to smoking, that may not have helped him running.

Cite he was not exercising and smoking alot ( Smoking what?)? Can you name many husky Marathon runners?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 08, 2012, 04:05:42 PM
Very good Tchoupi,
Police Chief Bill Lee seemed to think TM had started to walk home
when GZ reappeared at the T. TM then turned around to "mouth off"
as Lee put it. Do you think the timing  was fateful that night?
TM thought he'd lost GZ and left his hiding place just as GZ
came back to the T?

Link to Lee's comments that I think Ignatius is referring to:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/31/v-fullstory/2725442/what-is-known-what-isnt-about.html
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 08, 2012, 04:07:49 PM
Cite he was not exercising and smoking alot ( Smoking what?)? Can you name many husky Marathon runners?

Or husky lightweight fighters, cornerbacks, etc.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 08, 2012, 04:19:54 PM
I'm in incredibly bad shape. I smoke, drink, and get very little exercise (surprisingly I'm not fat, go figger), am much older than TM and even I can run 100 yards or so w/o being so out of breath I had to stop. A lean 17 y/o would not be out of breath unless they had some kind of illness. I think Dee Dee's "out of breath" comment was coached. To present TM as having run to the point of exhaustion from a crazed stalker that was pursuing him and then having to fight desperately for his life when his stalker caught him. That's certainly been Crump's narrative.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 04:28:04 PM
DeeDee's statement is pretty clear about him hiding. 

Dee Dee didn't say a word about Martin hiding.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 04:33:56 PM
That's what she says when she states that he lowered his voice for a little while and then resumed walking home before being "cornered" a "couple" of minute later.

Can you hear her say 'cornered' on the recording of the Crump interview?

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 08, 2012, 04:46:31 PM
It's written abrasion in the discovery.

Tchoupi, have you listened to the audio interviews of the medics at the scene? I recommend you do. He had lacerations (not abrasions) on the back of his head and abrasions on his forehead, cheeks and elsewhere on his face. There was a lot of blood. Here's a synopis:

O’Rourke

Treated him in back of patrol car
one or two lacerations on back of head
what looked like a fractured nose
he cleaned the blood off his head and face
he was covered in a significant amount of blood
it took a while to clean him up
he’d say 45% of him was covered in blood
there was blood on his cheeks and back in head

Brandy

abrasions on face
a cut on the back of his head
he told an officer he would need to go to hospital and get stitches
officer said ok, he asked if  cops would take him or they (EMTs) should, cop said cops would take him
He had a definite laceration to the back of the head
It  was pretty big, at least an inch by a half inch wide
There were abrasions on forehead, cheeks and face, his nose was swollen
There was one big cut on the back of his head, it was straight up and down
He had blood on his arms and his hands,  they used peroxide to clean him up and wash his hands

Livingstone

He had blood on his face,  and what looked like a broken nose
There were two small  (one inch)  lacerations on the back of his head
One looked deeper than other
They cleaned them so they would stop bleeding
Police asked if he needed to go by ambulance. They told cops he looks like he has a broken nose, may need a stitch or two. After discussion, police told them they would take him and see if he needs stitches
GZ  complained to her about his  injuries, said he was dizzy
When she was trying to get dried blood off she had to  push a little harder,  and he said it hurt. He also said his nose hurt.

(She is the one who took the can from Trayvon’s pocket, it was tall and full she put it to the side.  She said he had a small bullet hole in his chest that wasn’t even bleeding)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 08, 2012, 05:07:11 PM
In any case, what DeeDee hears that is not told by TM is probably the only thing that matters.  Hearsays are usually not accepted in court.  So, what matters is what she heard TM & GZ say to each other, what the ton of the voices, the background noise.  For example, she stated that she heard the phone on the grass before the line went dead.  It may sound like nothing but since the found the phone dead on the grass it gives some level of credence to her story, most knowing that she made her statements before the the first discovery release.

Or she learned it from Crump. Do you think Martin's family didn't know that by then?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 08, 2012, 05:10:34 PM
Dee Dee didn't say a word about Martin hiding.

are you sure?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 08, 2012, 05:25:12 PM
are you sure?
If she did, why not just quote what she said?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 08, 2012, 05:35:32 PM
If she did, why not just quote what she said?

I don't have an encyclopedic command of her ramblings. Was and remain fairly sure she mentioned something about TM hiding--maybe not exactly "He was hiding" but what was the part where she talks about TM lowering his voice and so forth?
 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 08, 2012, 05:58:27 PM
I don't have an encyclopedic command of her ramblings. Was and remain fairly sure she mentioned something about TM hiding--maybe not exactly "He was hiding" but what was the part where she talks about TM lowering his voice and so forth?
Okay, but it seems somewhat unreasonable to me to challenge someone to prove something didn't happen because you have a vague recollection it did.

According to the transcript, here's what DeeDee said about Martin lowering his voice:
Quote
Dee Dee: So he put his hoodie on. So I said, ‘What’s going on?’ He said this man is still watching him. Like in a car…so he about to run from the back. So then I told him, go to his dad house. Run to his Dad house.
BDLR: Go to what?
Dee Dee: Run to his dad house.
BDLR: To his dad’s house?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: So he say he about to run for the back cause its mo’ easier, he said. So, next thing I hear, he gettin’ run. And I can hear that the wind blowin’…
BDLR: So you could tell he was running at that time…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, and then what happened?
Dee Dee: And then…he say he lost him.
BDLR: He lost..like…the man?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: So, was Trayvon at that time…you could tell he was like, out of breath, like excited…
Dee Dee: Yeah. . .
BDLR: …like, like…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: Then…
BDLR: Take your time; I know this is difficult for you
Dee Dee: He lost him; he was breathin’ hard. An…by the sound his voice…voice kinda change…
BDLR: Who? Trayvon?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, what do you mean by that, his voice changed?
Dee Dee: [unintelligible] I know he was scare.
BDLR: I’m sorry?
Dee Dee: I know he was scare. He…
BDLR: How..how…could …tell…and I know what you’re trying to tell me, but if you could, describe to me how you could tell he was scared.
Dee Dee: Voice was getting kind of low…[unintelligible]…breathin’ har’…
BDLR: So, you could tell he was emotional like somebody who was like in fear?
Dee Dee: Yeah…he say he lost him…
BDLR: OK…he was breathing hard?
Dee Dee: He say he lost him…breathin’ har’, you know. And I like, he goin’…so he say he lost him. And then a couple…and then he say he right by his ass [incorrectly transcribed] …he ru’, he go’ keep ru’ ’til hi’ dad house.
BDLR: OK, let me make sure I understand that he’s saying that he’s “right by his ass”…meaning the guy is right by Trayvon?
Dee Dee: No, he say he lost the guy…
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: And then he ran from the back…
BDLR: Right.
Dee Dee: He say he lost him.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: He started walking back again…and I told him ‘Keep runnin’.’
BDLR: So Trayvon said he started walking because he thought he had lost the guy.
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: I say, ‘Keep runnin’.’
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house…
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: So, and in a couple minutes…he say the man followin’ him again, behin’ him. And I say, ‘RUN!’ You goin’ to run? He say he not goin’ run cause…I could have known he not going to run, cause he out of breath. and then, he told me, he say this guy getting’ close to him. I told him ‘RUN!’ And then, and then… I tol’ him ‘Keep runnin’.’ He not goin’ run. And then he say…I told him, ‘Why you not runnin’? He say, ‘I’m not go’ run,’ cause he tired, but I know he tired.
BDLR: I’m sorry…Trayvon said he’s not running because…he’s not going to run he said…because you could tell he was tired?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
I see a lot about running, walking, and lowering his voice because he was scared, but nothing about hiding.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 06:02:25 PM
Tchoupi, have you listened to the audio interviews of the medics at the scene? I recommend you do. He had lacerations (not abrasions) on the back of his head and abrasions on his forehead, cheeks and elsewhere on his face. There was a lot of blood. Here's a synopis:

O’Rourke

Treated him in back of patrol car
one or two lacerations on back of head
what looked like a fractured nose
he cleaned the blood off his head and face
he was covered in a significant amount of blood
it took a while to clean him up
he’d say 45% of him was covered in blood
there was blood on his cheeks and back in head

Brandy

abrasions on face
a cut on the back of his head
he told an officer he would need to go to hospital and get stitches
officer said ok, he asked if  cops would take him or they (EMTs) should, cop said cops would take him
He had a definite laceration to the back of the head
It  was pretty big, at least an inch by a half inch wide
There were abrasions on forehead, cheeks and face, his nose was swollen
There was one big cut on the back of his head, it was straight up and down
He had blood on his arms and his hands,  they used peroxide to clean him up and wash his hands

Livingstone

He had blood on his face,  and what looked like a broken nose
There were two small  (one inch)  lacerations on the back of his head
One looked deeper than other
They cleaned them so they would stop bleeding
Police asked if he needed to go by ambulance. They told cops he looks like he has a broken nose, may need a stitch or two. After discussion, police told them they would take him and see if he needs stitches
GZ  complained to her about his  injuries, said he was dizzy
When she was trying to get dried blood off she had to  push a little harder,  and he said it hurt. He also said his nose hurt.

(She is the one who took the can from Trayvon’s pocket, it was tall and full she put it to the side.  She said he had a small bullet hole in his chest that wasn’t even bleeding)

I was referring to Singleton's statement.  She is not a med specialist, I agree.  nevertheless, as a detective she must have some expertise in wounds. 
She actually wrote "appeared to be abrasions".
 
Emergency statement used the term "cut", indeed. 
But that term is generic and has little medical meaning.  For what matters here, the terms should be incision, laceration, abrasion, puncture wounds, penetration wound & gunshot.  They describe the type of wound and their severity.

So, I guess we will have to wait until the emergency witnesses are asked to clarify their statements. 

In any cases, the fact that GZ's wounds were treated with soap water doesn't suggest the wounds were bad.  Actually, abrasions are usually treated with soap water.  Moreover, they tend to dry within minutes.

Finally, as you ironically point out, the importance of bleeding doesn't necessarily correlates with the gravity of the wound.   This is why, as you wrote, you can get your heart perforated by a hollow point bullet with nearly blood pouring out your body, while you can get your face 45% covered with blood from wounds that can be treated with just soap & water.

I have, as everyone I guess, experienced incidents that made me bleed impressively.  During sport, leisure & work,  I've had my nose hit many times, eyebrow hit one time, I got the back of my head hitting rocks, my leg scrapped by gravel and my thigh perforated by a screwdriver.  In all these cases, I messed up everything on me and sometimes around me with my own blood. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 08, 2012, 06:11:49 PM
I was referring to Singleton's statement.  She is not a med specialist, I agree.  nevertheless, as a detective she must have some expertise in wounds. 
She actually wrote "appeared to be abrasions".
 
Emergency statement used the term "cut", indeed. 
But that term is generic and has little medical meaning.  For what matters here, the terms should be incision, laceration, abrasion, puncture wounds, penetration wound & gunshot.  They describe the type of wound and their severity. 

Forgive me if I give more weight to the words used by several medical professionals than the ones used by Singleton or you.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 08, 2012, 06:17:36 PM
Singleton even asked about one of the bumps to his head.  She asked him if his head was formed that way normally ((paraphrasing)) so I would give her very little (zero) credit for being a medically knowledgable person.  Her whole interview I thought was something of a mess.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 08, 2012, 06:19:21 PM
I was referring to Singleton's statement.  She is not a med specialist, I agree.  nevertheless, as a detective she must have some expertise in wounds. 
She actually wrote "appeared to be abrasions".
 
Emergency statement used the term "cut", indeed. 
But that term is generic and has little medical meaning.  For what matters here, the terms should be incision, laceration, abrasion, puncture wounds, penetration wound & gunshot.  They describe the type of wound and their severity.

So, I guess we will have to wait until the emergency witnesses are asked to clarify their statements. 

In any cases, the fact that GZ's wounds were treated with soap water doesn't suggest the wounds were bad.  Actually, abrasions are usually treated with soap water.  Moreover, they tend to dry within minutes.

Finally, as you ironically point out, the importance of bleeding doesn't necessarily correlates with the gravity of the wound.   This is why, as you wrote, you can get your heart perforated by a hollow point bullet with nearly blood pouring out your body, while you can get your face 45% covered with blood from wounds that can be treated with just soap & water.

I have, as everyone I guess, experienced incidents that made me bleed impressively.  During sport, leisure & work,  I've had my nose hit many times, eyebrow hit one time, I got the back of my head hitting rocks, my leg scrapped by gravel and my thigh perforated by a screwdriver.  In all these cases, I messed up everything on me and sometimes around me with my own blood.

Pay attention. Even at the doctor's office the next day they were called "lacerations".

LACERATIONS.

And I'm willing to wager my nose has been broken more times than yours--and it's only bled once from being broken

 Some people--like you, apparently-- are bleeding sallies.

Others of us are just tough.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 08, 2012, 06:22:23 PM
Are we drifting too far away from discussing DeeDee? Isn't there a GZ injury thread or something?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 08, 2012, 06:24:58 PM

For example, she stated that she heard the phone on the grass before the line went dead.  It may sound like nothing but since the found the phone dead on the grass it gives some level of credence to her story, most knowing that she made her statements before the the first discovery release.  So, it may come down to GZ's story in which TM said "You have a problem?"  against DeeDee's in which he says "What are you following me for?".

Where was Martin's phone found?  If DeeDee is to be believed, wouldn't it have to be very close to the T, where we have independent witnesses saying the confrontation began?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 07:01:22 PM
Where was Martin's phone found?  If DeeDee is to be believed, wouldn't it have to be very close to the T, where we have independent witnesses saying the confrontation began?

Is there anyone other than Zimmerman who says they SAW the confrontation begin close to the "T", or is that just how they've interpreted what they heard?

And someone somewhere the other day said that if the phone was knocked to the ground but the headphone cord didn't come loose or completely loose right away, the "hearing the grass" the young lady mentions could have been hearing the phone being dragged across the grass at the end of the headphone cord.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 08, 2012, 07:33:45 PM
Is there anyone other than Zimmerman who says they SAW the confrontation begin close to the "T", or is that just how they've interpreted what they heard?

And someone somewhere the other day said that if the phone was knocked to the ground but the headphone cord didn't come loose or completely loose right away, the "hearing the grass" the young lady mentions could have been hearing the phone being dragged across the grass at the end of the headphone cord.


Only if TM handed his phone to George before he slugged him.
Do you have any evidence otherwise. GZ statements given that evening carry a (IMO) a lot of weight.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 07:34:34 PM
Where was Martin's phone found?  If DeeDee is to be believed, wouldn't it have to be very close to the T, where we have independent witnesses saying the confrontation began?

The phone was found near TM's body 45feet away from the T.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 08, 2012, 07:38:34 PM
Quote
Quote from: tchoupi on Today at 04:28:21 PM

For example, she stated that she heard the phone on the grass before the line went dead.  It may sound like nothing but since the found the phone dead on the grass it gives some level of credence to her story, most knowing that she made her statements before the the first discovery release.  So, it may come down to GZ's story in which TM said "You have a problem?"  against DeeDee's in which he says "What are you following me for?".
Where was Martin's phone found?  If DeeDee is to be believed, wouldn't it have to be very close to the T, where we have independent witnesses saying the confrontation began?

Why do we assume Crump and the Martin Family were not aware of where the phone was found before the DLR interview. I seem to remember photographs and witness statements long before then. Also Crump had 'friends' inside the department and leaks were a big issue.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 08:34:37 PM

Only if TM handed his phone to George before he slugged him.
Do you have any evidence otherwise. GZ statements given that evening carry a (IMO) a lot of weight.


"Only if TM handed his phone to George before he slugged him."

If Martin slugged Zimmerman hard enough to detach Martin's own cell phone from the headphone cable and send it flying through the air some 40 feet to land at a point even further south than his body would wind up, then he'd still be alive with a hand that let him know every time the weather was about to change and Zimmerman would be dead or still in a coma.

"Do you have any evidence otherwise. GZ statements given that evening carry a (IMO) a lot of weight."

An apparent lack of evidence contradicting Zimmerman's claim that things started near the "T" does not, will not, and cannot turn ear witnesses into eyewitnesses.

If they saw it, they can say it started there, but if they only heard it from inside their homes they can only say that it sounded as though it started there.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 08, 2012, 08:56:01 PM
The phone was found near TM's body 45feet away from the T.

Get over the 45 feet.  That is wrong. 

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 08, 2012, 09:22:51 PM

"Only if TM handed his phone to George before he slugged him."

If Martin slugged Zimmerman hard enough to detach Martin's own cell phone from the headphone cable and send it flying through the air some 40 feet to land at a point even further south than his body would wind up, then he'd still be alive with a hand that let him know every time the weather was about to change and Zimmerman would be dead or still in a coma.

Exactly. In order for DeeDee to to hear 'grass sounds' ( if such an auditory tour de force is possible) the phone would have to be dangling  from Tm's pockets as he pursued a staggering GZ down the path to Johns back yard. No doubt other sounds would have dominated.

Quote
"Do you have any evidence otherwise. GZ statements given that evening carry a (IMO) a lot of weight."

An apparent lack of evidence contradicting Zimmerman's claim that things started near the "T" does not, will not, and cannot turn ear witnesses into eyewitnesses.

If they saw it, they can say it started there, but if they only heard it from inside their homes they can only say that it sounded as though it started there.

Yes, every eyewitness agrees. No other evidence contradicts.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 12:23:23 AM
Get over the 45 feet.  That is wrong.

What part is wrong?

That it's about 10 feet from the southern edge of the east-west sidewalk to the northern side of 1211 TTL?

That 1211 is at least 22 feet wide?

That 1221 is at least 20 feet wide?

Here's the floor plan for 1211

http://www.407re.com/retreat-abaco


Here's the floor plan for 1221

http://www.407re.com/retreat-cancun

unless it's this one which is one square foot larger

http://www.407re.com/retreat-dominica


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 12:43:45 AM
...

Yes, every eyewitness agrees. No other evidence contradicts.

The eye witnesses agree on what they heard?

That part's not really part of being an eye witness, now is it?

Sounded like it started near the "T" is not the same as "I saw it start near the T".

They can say they believe it started near the "T", but they can't say they saw it start there.

Sounds can echo, and appear to be coming from somewhere other than from where they are actually originating.

Sights don't usually echo, unless you count reflections.

None of those "...independent witnesses saying the confrontation began..." "...very close to the T..." can say they saw that.

They can't even say they saw a reflection of it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Kyreth on August 09, 2012, 01:00:38 AM
Does it matter?  W11/20 heard the sound come from the north side of their house, and move around the corner and past their house to the south.  W6 heard the screams for help come from a distance and move closer.

And that supports the one eyewitness who did say it started at the T, so that's plenty right there, with nothing to refute it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 01:09:24 AM
Does it matter?  W11/20 heard the sound come from the north side of their house, and move around the corner and past their house to the south....

Zimmerman never said or re-enacted anything about the physical encounter going around a corner, so is he wrong, or are they?

Perhaps what they thought they heard wasn't what they actually heard.

A possibility I seem to remember raising as part of pointing out that being an earwitness isn't the same as being an eyewitness.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 06:36:10 AM
Okay, but it seems somewhat unreasonable to me to challenge someone to prove something didn't happen because you have a vague recollection it did.

According to the transcript, here's what DeeDee said about Martin lowering his voice: I see a lot about running, walking, and lowering his voice because he was scared, but nothing about hiding.

That's not the part. Hell I don't know anymore. I'll try to find it when I have better access later.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 06:41:44 AM
The eye witnesses agree on what they heard?

That part's not really part of being an eye witness, now is it?

Sounded like it started near the "T" is not the same as "I saw it start near the T".

They can say they believe it started near the "T", but they can't say they saw it start there.

Sounds can echo, and appear to be coming from somewhere other than from where they are actually originating.

Sights don't usually echo, unless you count reflections.

None of those "...independent witnesses saying the confrontation began..." "...very close to the T..." can say they saw that.

They can't even say they saw a reflection of it.


Every eyewitness - at this point we only know of one. But he did give his statement before he was aware that other eyewitnesses were not forthcoming.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Kyreth on August 09, 2012, 07:04:44 AM
Zimmerman never said or re-enacted anything about the physical encounter going around a corner, so is he wrong, or are they?

Doesn't matter much IMO; either scenario supports Zimmerman pretty equally.  But likely what they heard as "coming around the corner" is when they moved into direct line of the open patio door so the acoustics changed.  I could see that sounding like it came around the corner.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Sling Trebuchet on August 09, 2012, 08:24:19 AM
Forgive me if I give more weight to the words used by several medical professionals than the ones used by Singleton or you.

The really interesting thing  is that they mention a *lot* of blood.
Cuts / abrasions / whatever it was that didn't need stitching or bandaging at the time .... is not as interesting as the amount of blood.
They say that he had a lot of blood - about 45% - on head and face - with cuts/abrasions/whatever on his face. Lots of blood.

According to Zimmerman's account, Martin was not alone punching, but also had both hands on Zimmerman's face and nose - so much so that he couldn't breathe.....

So Martin's hands would have had a lot of blood on them - right? Some from punching this very bloody face, and a lot from palms and fingers pressing down onto this very bloody face.

Martin's hands were covered in blood too - right?
They would have to be - wouldn't they?


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: AJ on August 09, 2012, 08:31:43 AM
The really interesting thing  is that they mention a *lot* of blood.
Cuts / abrasions / whatever it was that didn't need stitching or bandaging at the time .... is not as interesting as the amount of blood.
They say that he had a lot of blood - about 45% - on head and face - with cuts/abrasions/whatever on his face. Lots of blood.

According to Zimmerman's account, Martin was not alone punching, but also had both hands on Zimmerman's face and nose - so much so that he couldn't breathe.....

So Martin's hands would have had a lot of blood on them - right? Some from punching this very bloody face, and a lot from palms and fingers pressing down onto this very bloody face.

Martin's hands were covered in blood too - right?
They would have to be - wouldn't they?

We'll never know because his hands were not tested for foreign DNA. They could exhume the body, I suppose, but unless that is done we will not know. I doubt they'd do that though because there's no mention of bagging the hands properly for trace evidence collection - and not to mention the body was laying in the rain for half an hour or so.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Kyreth on August 09, 2012, 08:35:08 AM
We'll never know because his hands were not tested for foreign DNA. They could exhume the body, I suppose, but unless that is done we will not know. I doubt they'd do that though because there's no mention of bagging the hands properly for trace evidence collection - and not to mention the body was laying in the rain for half an hour or so.

And that half an hour was just until they threw a tarp over the body.  It lay in the wet grass and rain (with the tarp) for like 3 hours.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 08:38:27 AM
Doesn't matter much IMO; either scenario supports Zimmerman pretty equally.  But likely what they heard as "coming around the corner" is when they moved into direct line of the open patio door so the acoustics changed.  I could see that sounding like it came around the corner.

Gee, that "sounds" an awful lot like something sounding like one thing when it was actually something else.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Kyreth on August 09, 2012, 08:40:56 AM
Gee, that "sounds" an awful lot like something sounding like one thing when it was actually something else.

Not really.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 08:55:21 AM
The really interesting thing  is that they mention a *lot* of blood.

They say that he had a lot of blood - about 45% - on head and face - with cuts/abrasions/whatever on his face. Lots of blood.

According to Zimmerman's account, Martin was not alone punching, but also had both hands on Zimmerman's face and nose - so much so that he couldn't breathe.....

So Martin's hands would have had a lot of blood on them - right? Some from punching this very bloody face, and a lot from palms and fingers pressing down onto this very bloody face.

Martin's hands were covered in blood too - right?
They would have to be - wouldn't they?


You are being disingenuous. Please show where the phrase lots of blood was used.
Then please show me where anyone specified the amount of blood specifically on the face  excluding the back of the head- which was probably not directly contacted by TM.

Are you just  conflating the two areas to confuse the issue?


Covered in blood? Really? Ever sse a boxing match? Are the gloves ever 'covered in Blood'?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 09, 2012, 02:02:03 PM
The really interesting thing  is that they mention a *lot* of blood.
Cuts / abrasions / whatever it was that didn't need stitching or bandaging at the time .... is not as interesting as the amount of blood.
They say that he had a lot of blood - about 45% - on head and face - with cuts/abrasions/whatever on his face. Lots of blood.

According to Zimmerman's account, Martin was not alone punching, but also had both hands on Zimmerman's face and nose - so much so that he couldn't breathe.....

So Martin's hands would have had a lot of blood on them - right? Some from punching this very bloody face, and a lot from palms and fingers pressing down onto this very bloody face.

Martin's hands were covered in blood too - right?
They would have to be - wouldn't they?

So T Trebechet,
What do you think TM was doing at that time?
Why so little blood on his hands? :-\
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: ding7777 on August 09, 2012, 02:14:20 PM
The really interesting thing  is that they mention a *lot* of blood.
Cuts / abrasions / whatever it was that didn't need stitching or bandaging at the time .... is not as interesting as the amount of blood.
They say that he had a lot of blood - about 45% - on head and face - with cuts/abrasions/whatever on his face. Lots of blood.

According to Zimmerman's account, Martin was not alone punching, but also had both hands on Zimmerman's face and nose - so much so that he couldn't breathe.....

So Martin's hands would have had a lot of blood on them - right? Some from punching this very bloody face, and a lot from palms and fingers pressing down onto this very bloody face.

Martin's hands were covered in blood too - right?
They would have to be - wouldn't they?

I don't think TM was punching the back of GZ's head - so no blood would get on TM from those cuts; likewise when TM was punching above and to the side of GZ's nose, no blood would be on TM's hands from those punches
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 09, 2012, 02:18:02 PM
This thread is about DeeDee. Please take the injuries/blood comments to threads with that topic. There is a thread for GZ's injuries and a forensic thread.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 02:20:17 PM
are you sure?

I'm sure sure Dee Dee didn't say Martin was hiding in the SAO interview. I've listened to that recording many times, and transcribed the parts that struck me as significant. If she said that, I would know.

 

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
I don't have an encyclopedic command of her ramblings.

You weren't asked for an encyclopedia. You were asked to support the claim that you made.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 02:41:43 PM
That's not the part.

The section of transcript provided by MJW is the only part in which Dee Dee spoke of Martin lowering his voice.

I think you are attributing one of your own thoughts to Dee Dee. It's a common memory error.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 03:28:19 PM
I'm sure sure Dee Dee didn't say Martin was hiding in the SAO interview. I've listened to that recording many times, and transcribed the parts that struck me as significant. If she said that, I would know.

Okay, thank you.
 :)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 03:29:07 PM
You weren't asked for an encyclopedia. You were asked to support the claim that you made.

I meant that I couldn't recite her testimony from memory like so many of the rest of you seem to be able to do.
Don't be snarky.
 ;D
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 03:32:10 PM
The section of transcript provided by MJW is the only part in which Dee Dee spoke of Martin lowering his voice.

I think you are attributing one of your own thoughts to Dee Dee. It's a common memory error.

Nope.

Close, but wrong. I was attributing something I've seen repeated several (many) times in several places. In other words--it wasn't my thought as such. I trusted other people and shouldn't have. I am, as such, corrected.

However ( ;)) from what she says right around where she talks of him lowering his voice, not running because he says he lost him and so forth--hiding is an easy conclusion to make.

But the facts are that she doesn't say it, there or apparently anywhere.

Okay?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: JW on August 19, 2012, 12:55:29 AM


Does anyone have an opinion of how much of Dee Dee's testimony would be considered hear say? It seems to me if she testified as to Trayvon's telling of events it wouldn't be allowed because Trayvon can't be cross examined on it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 19, 2012, 03:15:50 AM
What Martin told Dee Dee is hearsay, but potentially admissible under the Spontaneous Statement exception (Fla. Stat. § 90.803). (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html)

To get it excluded, O'Mara would have to argue that it was 'made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.'

 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 19, 2012, 06:49:56 AM
What Martin told Dee Dee is hearsay, but potentially admissible under the Spontaneous Statement exception (Fla. Stat. § 90.803). (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html)

To get it excluded, O'Mara would have to argue that it was 'made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.'

Does that include and encompass impeaching the young lady or is it limited only to the testimony?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 19, 2012, 07:20:00 AM
Does that include and encompass impeaching the young lady or is it limited only to the testimony?

The credibility of the witness is for the jury to decide.

The point of the exception to the exception, is that the judge can exclude the hearsay testimony if there is reason to doubt that the declarant, the original source of the hearsay, was telling the truth to the witness.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 19, 2012, 07:45:04 AM
The credibility of the witness is for the jury to decide.

The point of the exception to the exception, is that the judge can exclude the hearsay testimony if there is reason to doubt that the declarant, the original source of the hearsay, was telling the truth to the witness.

I'm not sure if you know this or not, but oftentimes a jury will decide credibility of a witness based on relevant facts about the witness.

Hence the question.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 19, 2012, 09:40:54 AM
The credibility of the witness is for the jury to decide.

The point of the exception to the exception, is that the judge can exclude the hearsay testimony if there is reason to doubt that the declarant, the original source of the hearsay, was telling the truth to the witness.

So if the young lady is being just as truthful as she knows how in relating what she heard, they can still keep it out if they have good reason to think Martin was just making it all up?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 19, 2012, 10:09:49 AM
So if the young lady is being just as truthful as she knows how in relating what she heard, they can still keep it out if they have good reason to think Martin was just making it all up?

Well because TM isn't there to be cross examined.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 19, 2012, 10:13:42 AM
So if the young lady is being just as truthful as she knows how in relating what she heard, they can still keep it out if they have good reason to think Martin was just making it all up?

That's how I read the statute.

There doesn't seem to be much case law on this, probably because it's an area in which appellate courts mostly defer to trial judges.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 19, 2012, 02:26:45 PM
So if the young lady is being just as truthful as she knows how in relating what she heard, they can still keep it out if they have good reason to think Martin was just making it all up?

Yes, because the only reason for having her testify is for the truth of what Martin was saying. If the circumstances indicated Martin wasn't telling her what was really occurring, her testimony wouldn't matter no matter how accurately she related Martin's false tales. The premise behind the spontaneous statement exception is that someone narrating an exciting event as it occurs is unlikely to have the time for reflection, so they probably aren't making it up.

In Florida, the spontaneous statement exception is not quite as broad as it may appear from the text of the statute. The Florida supreme court said in State v. Juno (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=384906780015304798&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45) that a spontaneous statement must be made in response to "an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement." Notice how de la Rionda emphasizes Martin's state of mind. I think he may have had the spontaneous statement exception in mind.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 19, 2012, 03:03:20 PM
Just to avoid any possible confusion, let me state that there's absolutely no way del la Rionda's interview with DeeDee would be admissible hearsay that would substitute for her trial testimony. It's testimonial hearsay that would be excluded by the 6th amendment. If she testifies, it could be used by the defense to impeach her testimony, and under certain circumstances, by the state to show she hasn't recently invented or changed her testimony.

My previous comment on the relationship between the interview and admissibility concerned how del la Rionda may have been trying to establish that Martin's comments to DeeDee were made in the excited state required by the spontaneous statement exception.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 19, 2012, 04:11:55 PM
Yes, because the only reason for having her testify is for the truth of what Martin was saying. If the circumstances indicated Martin wasn't telling her what was really occurring, her testimony wouldn't matter no matter how accurately she related Martin's false tales. The premise behind the spontaneous statement exception is that someone narrating an exciting event as it occurs is unlikely to have the time for reflection, so they probably aren't making it up. In Florida, the spontaneous statement exception is not quite as broad as it may appear from the text of the statute. The Florida supreme court said in State v. Juno (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=384906780015304798&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45) that a spontaneous statement must be made in response to "an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement." Notice how de la Rionda emphasizes Martin's state of mind. I think he may have had the spontaneous statement exception in mind.

I agree that the lack of trustworthiness pertains to Trayvon's statements to DeeDee, not Dee Dee's recitation of them. But, a spontaneous statement and excited utterance and state of mind are all separate and distinct exceptions to the hearsay rule. I don't think they are  interchangeable.

In Florida, there is a distinction between a spontaneous statement and an excited utterance.  They can overlap, but they are not the same. A spontaneous statement need not be the product of a startling event. An excited utterance does need to relate to a startling event. The admissibility factors for each are different. Only a spontaneous statement, not an excited utterance, will be excluded if there are indications of lack of trustworthiness.

The hearsay exceptions are here (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html[color=red).

Quote
1) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.—A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE.—A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition

If it is a spontaneous statement, i.e., a statement Trayvon made to DeeDee about what was happening at the time it was happening, and circumstances indicate Martin's statements to Dee Dee lack trustworthiness, it will be excluded. The excited utterance exception does not have a lack of trustworthiness factor.

A third exception applies to statements made by Trayvon to DeeDee that show Trayvon's state of mind. Like spontaneous statements, and unlike excited utterances,  lack of trustworthiness can result in the exclusion of the statement.

Quote
3) THEN-EXISTING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION.—
(a) A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:

1. Prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.

2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.

(b) However, this subsection does not make admissible:

1. An after-the-fact statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed, unless such statement relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant’s will.
2. A statement made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

The delcarant, as MJW says, is  Trayvon, not DeeDee. Dee Dee would be the witness  who is testifying about what the declarant (Trayvon) said to her.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 19, 2012, 05:59:02 PM
So both are contemporaneous but the excited utterance requires an unexpected stimulus?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 19, 2012, 06:16:42 PM
So both are contemporaneous but the excited utterance requires an unexpected stimulus?

According to the Juno case that MJW cited,

Quote
The two exceptions differ mainly in the amount of time that may lapse between the event and the statement describing the event. Under Section 90.803(2) it is not necessary that there be contemporaneity between the event and the statement. As long as the excited state of mind is present when the statement is made, the statement is admissible if it meets the other requirements of Section 90.803(2). This excited state may exist a substantial length of time after the event. Factors that the trial judge can consider in determining whether the necessary state of stress or excitement is present are the age of the declarant, the physical and mental condition of the declarant, the characteristics of the event and the subject matter of the statements. Whether the necessary state of mind is present is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104.

 If a person involved in an automobile accident is rendered unconscious, a statement made a number of days after the accident when he or she regains consciousness can be admitted as an excited utterance if it was made while the person was excited about the accident.

Under  Section 90.803(2) the statement must only "relate" to the event causing the excitement; Section 90.803(1) is limited to statements which "describe or explain" the event.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 19, 2012, 08:51:38 PM
I have read and reread DD's statement.

If they discredit her, the things that match to Zimmerman's statement will be discredited also, right?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 19, 2012, 09:35:44 PM
I have pondered the same question. IPerhaps this is all a bit premature until DeeDee is subject to adverserial examination. If I had to guess, she will be forced to admit she was coached which may of may not descredit all of her testimony.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 19, 2012, 11:27:04 PM
Earlier, I said State v. Juno. I meant State v. Jano. Juno's a movie.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 20, 2012, 12:28:13 AM
I now discover to my surprise that the "excited state" requirement for spontaneous statements was overturned in Deparvine v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14218869107392023945&hl=en&as_sdt=40005&sciodt=4,10), 995 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2008):
Quote
As noted, in Hutchinson, this Court stated, "Both the excited utterance and the spontaneous statement exceptions require the declarant to be laboring under the influence of a startling event at the time that the statement is made." 882 So.2d at 951. In Lyles v. State, 412 So.2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the Second District held, "In order for the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule to be applicable, there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting." Id. at 460. In State v. Skolar, 692 So.2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), the Fifth District held a 911 call inadmissible because it was "not made as the result of a startling or stressful event, and it therefore cannot qualify under § 90.803 as either a spontaneous statement or an excited utterance." Id. at 311. However, because we now conclude that this view requiring a startling event in order for the spontaneous exception to apply is contrary to the underlying principles embodied in section 90.803(1), we now reject this view.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 20, 2012, 04:58:24 AM
I have pondered the same question. IPerhaps this is all a bit premature until DeeDee is subject to adverserial examination. If I had to guess, she will be forced to admit she was coached which may of may not descredit all of her testimony.

If she was coached and if she admits it (yes, I think she was) then the portion of her testimony that matches GZ's should be okay--since it does match. It's some of the other stuff that the jury may or may not wish to ignore.

O'Mara may want her on the stand just to buttress some of GZ's version as well as to show the jury the coaching?

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 20, 2012, 05:38:29 AM
If she was coached and if she admits it (yes, I think she was) then the portion of her testimony that matches GZ's should be okay--since it does match. It's some of the other stuff that the jury may or may not wish to ignore.

O'Mara may want her on the stand just to buttress some of GZ's version as well as to show the jury the coaching?

If it's show she was coached I can't imagine any of her testimony or statements being given credibility by anyone. Also, if it was coaching from the State I think the s**t is going to hit the fan.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 20, 2012, 07:24:39 AM
If it's show she was coached I can't imagine any of her testimony or statements being given credibility by anyone. Also, if it was coaching from the State I think the s**t is going to hit the fan.

I don't know that the State had much to do with her coaching but that interview was leading the witness at its finest.  Since it is just a sworn statement, I don't think that it carries the same weight as it would if made during a trial.

I think that may all be Crump although I am wondering if he told de la Rionda what kind of scope to maintain when asking questions of her.  We know that Crump was there at the interview before it started.  We know that the state needed certain answers to insure getting its Probable Cause.

I do wonder why, after all of the hard work in searching for Dee Dee, did Crump settle for just a phone interview?  That defies reason to me.  I would think that they would do a face-to-face since she is the last person to have talked to Trayvon Martin.

Quote
BDLR: OK, OK. Alright. Now you previously, you were called by Mr. Crump, Mr. Benjamin
Crump that was here earlier,
and some attorneys called you up, right?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: You remember talking to them on the phone?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: And did you attempt as best you could to tell them the truth too…about what happened?
Do you remember talking to them at all?
Dee Dee: Yeah.

Why I think she was coached if further up in the interview.  BdlR  wanted her to say that TM was being chased.
Quote
BDLR: On the phone. Did Trayvon ever expand on that? Did he ever say something else about
that , now he’s out like that…like, uh…whether the guy had gotten out of the car? Did he ever
describe, “Yeah, the guy, now he’s out of the car, he’s chasing me.” I know you said the guy, he
said the guy was following him. But did he ever say the guy got out of the car?
Dee Dee: You want that too?

He was anticipating the excited utterance, IMO, but didn't really seem to get that far since she didn't really expand the excited part for him, IMO:
Quote
BDLR: So, was Trayvon at that time…you could tell he was like, out of breath, like excited…
Dee Dee: Yeah. . .
BDLR: …like, like…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 20, 2012, 08:50:37 AM
If it's show she was coached I can't imagine any of her testimony or statements being given credibility by anyone. Also, if it was coaching from the State I think the s**t is going to hit the fan.

Coaching from Crump during the time he had her before he made her available. Didn't aspects of her story change a little as new information came out? I think I remember that but who knows for sure anymore.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: turbo6 on August 20, 2012, 10:14:19 PM
BDLR was definitely interested in an admittance of perhaps a confrontation prior to the 911 call, verbal or otherwise. He wasn't really pressing on minor stuff, but any indication of aggressiveness from GZ.

The part of her interview I found most compelling was when BDLR asked if Trayvon ever mentioned GZ was coming at him like he was going to hit him. DeeDee replies "Yeah, you could say that". It seems like she is about to elaborate more but then simply chalks it up to GZ being all crazy and stuff.

I think she later realized that perhaps saying that was implying Trayvon was prepping for a fight. BDLR seems to want to wrap up the interview and then she decides to express guilt and state he wasn't a "fighter".

Of course this brings us all back to square one, wondering how TM ended up away from his dad's house, tired and out of breath and still in close proximity to the T.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 20, 2012, 11:19:24 PM
I now discover to my surprise that the "excited state" requirement for spontaneous statements was overturned in Deparvine v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14218869107392023945&hl=en&as_sdt=40005&sciodt=4,10), 995 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2008):

Thanks for letting us know. I deleted your earlier comment with pre-Deparvine rulings. Hope that's ok.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 20, 2012, 11:52:37 PM
Thanks for letting us know. I deleted your earlier comment with pre-Deparvine rulings. Hope that's ok.

So inquiring minds want to know what Bernie de la Rionda was fishing for when questioning Dee Dee and trying to get her to admit that TM  was excited?  How does that play out with the things she says he said...?  Is all of it admissible then?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 21, 2012, 05:13:54 AM
So inquiring minds want to know what Bernie de la Rionda was fishing for when questioning Dee Dee and trying to get her to admit that TM  was excited?   

He probably wants Excited Utterance in reserve, in case the judge does rule against Spontaneous Statement.

Quote
Is all of it admissible then?

On the hearsay, too early to say, and probably will be until the judge actually rules on it.

When O'Mara deposes Dee Dee, he may get something that will convince the judge that Spontaneous Statement doesn't apply.

I expect some of Dee Dee's opinions to be excluded. I mean like the headset falling, or Martin getting bumped as opposed to doing the bumping. She'll probably be restricted to describing the sounds she heard, leaving the jury, or the judge in an immunity hearing, to draw conclusions. See Fla. Stat. § 90.701. (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.701.html)

I'm looking forward to hearing Dee Dee describe what grass sounds like.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 21, 2012, 03:05:51 PM
It should be noted that DeeDee originally said Trayvon put his hood up because he was being watched, not because of rain. Her statement is highlighted with text in the original ABC Gutman report at 1:02."He said this man was watching him so he put his hoodie on..." No mention of hood/rain until the De Le Rionda farce of an interview. Just one of DeeDee's many inconsistencies.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-girlfriend-speaks-15959779

The ABC report came out on Tuesday, March 20 and Gutman mentions the interview took place on Monday so March 19 or earlier. It seems Crumps statement on March 20 is spin. He is a little too emphatic in his attempt to counter DeeDee's clear statement in her own words.

DD saying TM put his hoodie on because he was being watched suggests he was trying to hide his face. I think it adds support to the theory that TM ran because he saw GZ talking on the phone, possibly realizing GZ was calling the police, and not because he was afraid of GZ. It also adds a motive for TM hitting GZ when he reached for his phone which is the only thing TM knew that GZ might have in his pockets. He may have been trying to prevent GZ from calling the police again.

EDIT: That doesn't mean TM was doing anything illegal that he would be worried about the police, but nobody likes to being watched, followed and then reported on. When someone threatens to call the cops, or actually does, it does make many people a little upset/panicky even if they didn't do anything wrong.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 21, 2012, 03:30:38 PM
It seems more likely to me that if Martin really felt that police were on their way, and he had reason to fear that, he would have gone home.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 21, 2012, 03:40:46 PM
It seems more likely to me that if Martin really felt that police were on their way, and he had reason to fear that, he would have gone home.

The same argument could be made if he ran because he was afraid of GZ. Seriously, what's to fear about someone sitting in a truck talking on the phone even if they are watching you? Do pedophiles, stalkers, or whatever TM might have thought GZ was, normally talk to someone on the phone while doing their thing? Now if GZ had gotten out of the truck and approached TM that would be a different story. But nope, GZ just sat in the truck talking on the phone. And according to GZ's statement, IIRC, he even rolled up his window as TM approached. What would TM be afraid of? The guy that rolled up the window as he approached (and likely looked scared/worried), or what that guy was doing on the phone? Of course it's just a theory.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on August 21, 2012, 06:59:35 PM
It seems more likely to me that if Martin really felt that police were on their way, and he had reason to fear that, he would have gone home.

I think this is a reasonable conclusion. That may be why he went home initially.  I know we aren't to speculate, but it could be he got home and whatever fear he had of police coming was no longer an issue.  If he walked back to the 'T' (which I believe is what Dee Dee meant) and he was keeping his voice low, he might have still had fear of police coming and was avoiding detection.  Seeing GZ reappear and not be on the phone, might have given him new courage, especially since he now sees  the man that was watching him looks considerably smaller than him.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on August 22, 2012, 04:31:52 PM
Sybrina: “as far as I know, he (Trayvon) had no girlfriend” @6:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHPE_V8i5ZQ

So why has she never corrected Crump/Jackson and the media who still refer to DeeDee as ‘girlfriend’?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 22, 2012, 05:48:52 PM
Responding to comment on another thread.

Do you know of a transcript of the Crump interview from 3/19 or an understandable version of the recorded interview?

Crump (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html) on CNN, March 20.

Quote
As far as I know, the only version released so far is unlistenable.

Yes. I made what I could of it on the  blog. (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/5/27/41053/5361/66#66)

Quote
The ABC clips are understandable but incomplete and their printed version makes it difficult to know exactly where her comments fall in a timeline but it seems to be earlier, just after leaving the mailbox area and putting up the hood, according to this paragraph:

Quote
"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

This is the sequence in the Crump interview (differing a bit from SAO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu)).

Crump Narrative Summary

Martin ran into the complex, running to the first building he saw, and sheltered from the rain. (The shelter was not further described in this version. The building was mentioned again as an 'apartment building', a phrase not normally used for the clubhouse.)

Martin left the shelter after 'a few minutes', when the rain slacked but didn't stop. He was walking, with his hood up because it was still raining. (Unlike the SAO, Crump didn't specify that Martin put the hood up, at this or any time. In Crump's version it's not clear if Martin ever took the hood down.)

The phones reconnected at 6:54. (Crump specified the time. 'You'll see the phone calls[sic] when it came in at 6:54.')

Martin told Dee Dee he thought a 'dude' was following him.

Martin tried to look in the car, by 'kind of' slowing down, presumably to allow the car to catch up with him. (This resembles nothing in Dee Dee' SAO statement, the police call, Zimmerman's SPD statements, or anywhere in the evidence that I know of. Crump claimed that it corresponded to Martin approaching the truck in the police call.)

Dee Dee suggested that Martin run.

Martin ran.

Martin told Dee Dee he thought he had lost the man following him.

Martin walked.

Martin told Dee Dee the man was following him again.

Dee Dee told Martin to run.

Martin said he wouldn't run, but would 'walk fast'. (The 'walk fast' line is not in the SAO version.)

Martin spoke to the man following him, beginning the confrontation.

End Crump Narrative Summary

From this you can see that the ABC bit omits Martin running. But it puts the 'walk fast' line after Martin said he lost Zimmerman, which was after he ran in the full narrative.

The number of times Dee Dee urged Martin to run is a potentially confusing difference between Crump's and the SAO version. Crump omitted the second time.

In the SAO version, Dee Dee three times suggested that Martin run. The first time was when he first said he thought he was being followed. The second was after Martin said he lost the man. The third was when he said the man was following him again.

In both versions, Martin ran once, the first time Dee Dee suggested it, and not again.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 22, 2012, 06:41:49 PM
why is Crumps' version even relevant? I could care less what he says. There are two versions of Dee Dee's statement and George's. Crump's is nothing but a biased interpretation of what he thinks she meant.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 22, 2012, 07:02:48 PM
We really need the clear audio that ABC used. Not what the State put in discovery. I doubt even MOM (or State) knows what she really said during that Crump interview unless they have a copy of it that we don't know about. Seems kind of important to me.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 22, 2012, 07:14:57 PM
Responding to comment on another thread.

Do we know that Dee Dee was a close friend of TM?

I would say the amount of time we know they were on the phone indicates some degree of being close.
 
Quote
Some of her actions and testimony seem at odds with being a close friend

You mean her not coming forward?

I have no idea what testimony you might have in mind.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 22, 2012, 07:42:46 PM
Crump's is nothing but a biased interpretation of what he thinks she meant.

That's one reason for discussing it.

There's a lot of stuff in the ether about 'what Dee Dee said'. I think it's worth pointing out which bits are from a less reliable source.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 22, 2012, 09:16:25 PM
Responding to comment on another thread.

I would say the amount of time we know they were on the phone indicates some degree of being close. the
 
You mean her not coming forward?

I have no idea what testimony you might have in mind.

Are we sure it was Deedee on the phone? Where was she? Is there a witness?
If so what was the actual conversation. We know Trayvon had a number of lady friends ( based on his cousins statement) It seems a little strange that he would spend over an hour talking to any particular one with no immediate prospects of meeting. Particularly if that young lady had a steady boy friend other that Trayvon.

Deedee does not enthusiastically endorse DLR speculation about a romantic relationship or Trayvon being a good guy?

I don't want to go into the character of Deedee's boyfriend ( if in fact he has any) unless it is brought up in discovery.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 22, 2012, 09:44:17 PM
Are we sure it was Deedee on the phone?

Are you suggesting that the person de la Rionda interviewed might be an imposter? She happened to lend her phone to someone for the whole day, and then agreed to pretend to be that person?

OK, I'll concede. I don't 'know' that such a thing isn't true. But I don't think it's likely enough to be worth discussing without evidence.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 22, 2012, 09:48:22 PM
Are you suggesting that the person de la Rionda interviewed might be an imposter? She happened to lend her phone to someone for the whole day, and then agreed to pretend to be that person?

OK, I'll concede. I don't 'know' that such a thing isn't true. But I don't think it's likely enough to be worth discussing without evidence.

DeeDee was DeeDee. I don't know if she had the phone - neither do you. Perhaps the phone was serving a commercial venture?

"Where were you?" and "Who was with you?" is interrogation 101.

I agree we can't go much further until we have evidence. In DeeDee's situation it is  sorely lacking.
 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 22, 2012, 10:12:08 PM
We know Trayvon had a number of lady friends (based on his cousins statement)

I don't agree that 'what girl' necessarily means 'which of a number of lady friends'.


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 22, 2012, 10:12:32 PM
We really need the clear audio that ABC used. Not what the State put in discovery. I doubt even MOM (or State) knows what she really said during that Crump interview unless they have a copy of it that we don't know about. Seems kind of important to me.

I agree  the ABC interview of Dee Dee should be obtained. Maybe O'Mara subpoenaed it from ABC. If he did, it should be disclosed as part of his reciprocal discovery

Yes, Dee Dee's statements are relevant, and important to the case, since the state has referred to her as a witness. But  Crump's interpretation and recitation of what she said is worthless in my view.  His statement is not Dee Dee's statement.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 22, 2012, 10:36:09 PM
I agree  the ABC interview of Dee Dee should be obtained. Maybe O'Mara subpoenaed it from ABC. If he did, it should be disclosed as part of his reciprocal discovery

That begs the question: Why didn't the State subpoena it? They couldn't have understood what was said in the copy put in discovery any better than we could. They made her key to their case and even put her in the affidavit of probable cause. They should have made sure they had everything they could get about what she ever said about the case. Sloppy or did they get what they wanted from the BDLR interview and didn't care about anything else?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 22, 2012, 10:40:18 PM
That begs the question: Why didn't the State subpoena it? They couldn't have understood what was said in the copy put in discovery any better than we could. They made her key to their case and even put her in the affidavit of probable cause. They should have made sure they had everything they could get about what she ever said about the case. Sloppy or did they get what they wanted from the BDLR interview and didn't care about anything else?

Why would they want to get it? They don't want to risk impeaching their witness, which is what might happen if they had an audible copy. Their obligation is to turn over what they have. And they did. In other words, they are happy to have blinders on in this situation.  Any discrepancy between her two statements will be used to impeach her at trial if she testifies.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on August 22, 2012, 10:56:31 PM
Why would they want to get it? They don't want to risk impeaching their witness, which is what might happen if they had an audible copy. Their obligation is to turn over what they have. And they did. In other words, they are happy to have blinders on in this situation.  Any discrepancy between her two statements will be used to impeach her at trial if she testifies.

Ok, not sloppy... stupid. They would have to have figured MOM would get a clear copy (Can't imagine ABC not archiving it). Without knowing what she said during the Crump interview they couldn't anticipate and counter any discrepancies MOM might point out between it and the BDLR one. If they didn't listen to a clear copy at some point that suggests to me they are being half-arsed about this case. Just going through the motions. If they did have access to a clear copy and didn't put it in discovery... well, that's even more disturbing.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 22, 2012, 11:12:32 PM
I don't agree that 'what girl' necessarily means 'which of a number of lady friends'.

His cousin was trying to guess which girlfriend TM was talking with. He even grabbed the phone - is seems definitive. See second prosecution disclosures.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 22, 2012, 11:19:32 PM
His cousin was trying to guess which girlfriend TM was talking with. . . . See second prosecution disclosures.

That's what I just looked at. Page 9. It says 'what girl', not 'which girlfriend'. Is there another statement from the cousin?

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 22, 2012, 11:26:20 PM
Perhaps the phone was serving a commercial venture?

You mean the kind of venture that avoids LE attention?

If that were so, I think Dee Dee would say Martin didn't tell her anything pertinent.

In my experience, such transactions aren't that time-consuming.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 22, 2012, 11:30:37 PM
That's what I just looked at. Page 9. It says 'what girl', not 'which girlfriend'. Is there another statement from the cousin?

Do you think women were calling TM to discuss existential philosophy? Why were they calling? I don't suppose you are assuming a commercial relationship? Why would his cousin be aware of that type of thing?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 22, 2012, 11:35:34 PM
You mean the kind of venture that avoids LE attention?

If that were so, I think Dee Dee would say Martin didn't tell her anything pertinent.

In my experience, such transactions aren't that time-consuming.

Unless the transaction required vectoring ( and there is no evidence of any commercial transaction)

The pressures on DeeDee should be obvious.

Any texting  ( as claimed ) should be in discovery.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 22, 2012, 11:38:51 PM
Unless the transaction required vectoring (and there is no evidence of any commercial transaction)

I'm sorry, I don't know what 'vectoring' means in this context.

Quote
Any texting  (as claimed) should be in discovery.

I don't understand what this is about. What texting, claimed by whom?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 22, 2012, 11:47:54 PM
Vectoring would imply that instructions are required for two parties to meet.

DeeDee claimed to have sent a text message(s?) to Trayvon.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 22, 2012, 11:54:48 PM
Vectoring would imply that instructions are required for two parties to meet.

Good point.

Martin could be as bad at giving directions as Zimmerman.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 23, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Good point.

Martin could be as bad at giving directions as Zimmerman.

Or whoever was using DeeDee's phone ( off and on) could be a bit better. I doubt Trayvon was
 a mastermind of anything. Perhaps Dee Dee's boyfriend ( if she had a boyfriend) might be more competent.
Quote
DeeDee claimed to have sent a text message(s?) to Trayvon

So where are they?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 23, 2012, 12:10:01 AM
So where are they?

The phone records need a lot of redaction. It wouldn't surprise me if they are among the last things to be released.

What's your point?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 23, 2012, 12:26:59 AM
The phone records need a lot of redaction. It wouldn't surprise me if they are among the last things to be released.

Oh why? It wouldn't surprise me either.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 23, 2012, 04:00:48 AM
I just don't think she much intended to be a witness,

I don't think there is much doubt about that.

Quote
Then why the delay if he was her friend?

I think she didn't know anything useful to the prosecution, and possibly did know something useful to the defense or bad for Martin's reputation. She sensibly didn't want to risk making up a story herself.

The Martins' lawyers pulled her into the light and, I speculate, offered her some coaching. She was under pressure to be the hero who, in Crump's (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html) words, 'connects the dots', and 'blows Zimmerman's absurd defense claim out of the water', to live up to the fantasies that knowing of her would arouse in Martin's supporters.

I've always thought those fantasies were overoptimistic. People talking on the phone don't usually spend much time describing whatever else they might be doing.

It seems likely to me that the conversations between these two consisted mostly of Dee Dee chattering about whatever was on her teenage girl mind, while Martin listened just enough to respond sensibly from time to time. Martin may have dealt with Zimmerman while telling Dee Dee little or nothing about it.

Another speculation, which has been around for awhile, is that Dee Dee said something to Martin that incited him to attack Zimmerman.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 23, 2012, 05:01:11 AM
His father tracked her down from looking at the bill.  (Sorry, I don't believe any investigator found her.)

Why not?

I haven't given any thought to this question. I'm interested in what you make of it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 23, 2012, 05:49:36 AM
Why would they want to get it? They don't want to risk impeaching their witness, which is what might happen if they had an audible copy. Their obligation is to turn over what they have. And they did. In other words, they are happy to have blinders on in this situation.  Any discrepancy between her two statements will be used to impeach her at trial if she testifies.

This is an example of the basic defect of the highly adversarial criminal justice system that the US has.  The underlying assumption is that two opposing sides, neither of whose goal is truth finding, will somehow produce that elusive end.  This is not justified by logic or experience.  I trust more, systems where the police are independent investigators for both sides and a judge leads the investigation.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 23, 2012, 06:06:17 AM
This is an example of the basic defect of the highly adversarial criminal justice system that the US has.  The underlying assumption is that two opposing sides, neither of whose goal is truth finding, will somehow produce that elusive end.  This is not justified by logic or experience.  I trust more, systems where the police are independent investigators for both sides and a judge leads the investigation.

Where do you get this. The state is required to represent the interests of the people. It is supposed to be a neutral proponent of the truth.
In which country does the state represent the interests of the accused. I am fairly sure I would not want my defense to be based solely on a police investigation despite a sympathetic job description.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 23, 2012, 06:41:22 AM
why is Crumps' version even relevant? I could care less what he says. There are two versions of Dee Dee's statement and George's. Crump's is nothing but a biased interpretation of what he thinks she meant.

Wouldn't Crump's version be relevant if (or to determine if) he coached her?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 23, 2012, 06:45:16 AM
Why would they want to get it? They don't want to risk impeaching their witness, which is what might happen if they had an audible copy. Their obligation is to turn over what they have. And they did. In other words, they are happy to have blinders on in this situation.  Any discrepancy between her two statements will be used to impeach her at trial if she testifies.

LOL. Sometimes I forget that the job of the prosecutor isn't actually to see justice done but to simply rack up convictions in any sort of borderline legal/ethical (from a non-legal standpoint) possible.


Yeah. Why would they want to investigate it totally indeed.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 23, 2012, 06:51:12 AM
Why not?

I haven't given any thought to this question. I'm interested in what you make of it.

I don't believe Tracy Martin found her. He turned the phone over to Crump who went searching. Odd that they only came up with DD, isn't it? TM didn't call anyone else that entire day? No one called him?

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 23, 2012, 07:07:28 AM
I don't believe Tracy Martin found her. He turned the phone over to Crump who went searching. Odd that they only came up with DD, isn't it? TM didn't call anyone else that entire day? No one called him?

Why do you think they returned that phone to Tracy Martin?  It is listed as evidence.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 23, 2012, 07:41:42 AM
Why do you think they returned that phone to Tracy Martin?  It is listed as evidence.

Do we know that the phone is not still in evidence?

It was my understanding that Tracy Martin got his cell phone bill (for Trayvon's phone and 3 others) some time in March, and that's when he discovered that Trayvon had been on the phone just before his death, and they used that number to find the young lady.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 23, 2012, 08:01:50 AM
Do we know that the phone is not still in evidence?

It was my understanding that Tracy Martin got his cell phone bill (for Trayvon's phone and 3 others) some time in March, and that's when he discovered that Trayvon had been on the phone just before his death, and they used that number to find the young lady.

As far as I know all of the information about contacting DD is coming from the cell bill.  Not from the phone itself.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 23, 2012, 08:06:30 AM

Crump (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html) didn't mention the bill on March 20.

Quote
Mr. Martin, on Sunday evening, was working with his cell phone account, trying to figure out Trayvon's password. And he looked on it, and he saw who the last person was that Trayvon Martin talked to while he was alive.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 23, 2012, 08:47:28 AM
Where do you get this. The state is required to represent the interests of the people. It is supposed to be a neutral proponent of the truth.
In which country does the state represent the interests of the accused. I am fairly sure I would not want my defense to be based solely on a police investigation despite a sympathetic job description.

Go do some reading on comparative law.  You are asking the wrong questions.  Prosecutors in the US don't search for the truth.  Their job is to see if they might be able to win a case by taking sides with somebody making an accusation.  I have seen this close up and personally, unfortunately.  Less partisan prosecutors are found in countries where a prosecutor gets involved only after a judge conducting an investigation decides to ask them to look further into the case, but definitely to keep the rights and presumed innocence of the accused in mind.  Bernie de la Rionda wouldn't be allowed to interview a witness, except experts, in Europe.  Having redundant investigations by partisan investigators is something you only have in high profile cases.  A 100% independent investigative body is the most utilitarian way to administer justice.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 23, 2012, 08:51:26 AM
Go do some reading on comparative law.  You are asking the wrong questions.  Prosecutors in the US don't search for the truth.  Their job is to see if they might be able to win a case by taking sides with somebody making an accusation.  I have seen this close up and personally, unfortunately.  Less partisan prosecutors are found in countries where a prosecutor gets involved only after a judge conducting an investigation decides to ask them to look further into the case, but definitely to keep the rights and presumed innocence of the accused in mind.  Bernie de la Rionda wouldn't be allowed to interview a witness, except experts, in Europe.  Having redundant investigations by partisan investigators is something you only have in high profile cases.  A 100% independent investigative body is the most utilitarian way to administer justice.

Then how do you explain Amanda Knox's Italian adventure?

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 23, 2012, 09:16:01 AM
Ya'll are going to get a reprimand and a deletion since Jeralyn asked that this not be discussed unless by PM.  She said that a couple of weeks ago when Tchoupi and Ricky were on this same discussion in regards to France. 

It doesn't matter what another state or country would do.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 23, 2012, 09:19:41 AM
Ya'll are going to get a reprimand and a deletion since Jeralyn asked that this not be discussed unless by PM.  She said that a couple of weeks ago when Tchoupi and Ricky were on this same discussion in regards to France. 

It doesn't matter what another state or country would do.

Now I recall that.  Tchoupi is easy to ignore. Thanks- Oh well another few sentences into the void.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on August 23, 2012, 10:08:17 AM
Do we know that the phone is not still in evidence?

It was my understanding that Tracy Martin got his cell phone bill (for Trayvon's phone and 3 others) some time in March, and that's when he discovered that Trayvon had been on the phone just before his death, and they used that number to find the young lady.

Natalie Jackson clearly stated they hired a P.I. who discovered DeeDee's phone call during an interview with Democracy Now. Either she is lying or Crump is, or both are. I think Jackson got a bit too comfortable in the pro-Martin/anti-Zimmerman environment and accidentally let the truth slip.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/30/trayvon_martin_family_attorney_on_mounting#transcript
Quote
NATALIE JACKSON: Yes. And, you know, I don’t know if it’s a terrible job or just they thought it was inconsequential to do the job. You know, there’s—whether or not it was important to do or it was bungled, we don’t know. But we had to go out and investigate this case. We hired an investigator that got the phone records. And once we saw Trayvon’s phone record, because he was on the—he had his phone with him, and we saw that he was on the phone when this incident purportedly happened. We contacted the person he was on the phone with. It was a young girl. And she told us that she heard Zimmerman approach Trayvon. And this is very extraordinary, because she and Trayvon—according to the phone records, there was a phone call at 7:12. The phone call lasted for four minutes. That would make it 7:16. According to police records, they were on the scene at 7:17, and Trayvon was dead. So, this young girl is a very important witness.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/30/trayvon_martin_family_attorney_on_mounting#transcript
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 23, 2012, 10:24:40 AM
Then how do you explain Amanda Knox's Italian adventure?

I don't know that case at all.  But I do know that Italy has in recent years tried to become more adversarial in their legal proceedings.  Prof. Pizzi of the U of Colorado has an account (http://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/pizzi/PizziMJIL.pdf).  One of the other big differences between the Civil Law tradition an what is practiced in the US is that even at trial, most of the questions to witnesses come from judges.  There is no direct and cross examination.  It never would have happened anywhere, even Italy, that a prosecutor could indict or refuse to indict somebody without revealing why.  Instead a judge would issue an indictment and give a report really explaining the probable cause or saying why he didn't indict.  I like to think that something like that would have defused the ugly situation in this case brewing in March and April.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: tchoupi on August 23, 2012, 10:27:20 AM
I don't think there is much doubt about that.

I think she didn't know anything useful to the prosecution, and possibly did know something useful to the defense or bad for Martin's reputation. She sensibly didn't want to risk making up a story herself.

The Martins' lawyers pulled her into the light and, I speculate, offered her some coaching. She was under pressure to be the hero who, in Crump's (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html) words, 'connects the dots', and 'blows Zimmerman's absurd defense claim out of the water', to live up to the fantasies that knowing of her would arouse in Martin's supporters.

I've always thought those fantasies were overoptimistic. People talking on the phone don't usually spend much time describing whatever else they might be doing.

It seems likely to me that the conversations between these two consisted mostly of Dee Dee chattering about whatever was on her teenage girl mind, while Martin listened just enough to respond sensibly from time to time. Martin may have dealt with Zimmerman while telling Dee Dee little or nothing about it.

Another speculation, which has been around for awhile, is that Dee Dee said something to Martin that incited him to attack Zimmerman.

This is all wild speculations.  The only fact is that she was on the phone with TM until about the time of the confrontation. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 23, 2012, 10:29:04 AM
As far as I know all of the information about contacting DD is coming from the cell bill.  Not from the phone itself.

Ooops, should have aimed for annoyedbeyond, sorry about the crossfire.

That's what I get for reading early in the morning with bleary eyes and a bad sinus headache.

(my hangovers are a lot cheaper now that I'm old enough to get them without having to have done any drinking the night before, but I'm beginning to think I might as well start up again)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 23, 2012, 10:38:54 AM
This is all wild speculations.  The only fact is that she was on the phone with TM until about the time of the confrontation.

Its speculation - but hardly wild. I don't personally  know of anyone who would disagree with
Quote
I've always thought those fantasies were overoptimistic. People talking on the phone don't usually spend much time describing whatever else they might be doing.

It seems likely to me that the conversations between these two consisted mostly of Dee Dee chattering about whatever was on her teenage girl mind, while Martin listened just enough to respond sensibly from time to time. Martin may have dealt with Zimmerman while telling Dee Dee little or nothing about it.

Unless the jury or judges hails from offshore or has not had children, I doubt they would disagree either.
This common experience diminishes DeeDee's already, minuscule creditability.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 23, 2012, 10:51:47 AM
Why do you think they returned that phone to Tracy Martin?  It is listed as evidence.

A couple of reasons. One, Tracy Martin had the phone for several days before turning it over, but during that time they (the family) was in touch with lawyers. Two, the cell bill would have listed the numbers.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 23, 2012, 10:56:38 AM
This is all wild speculations. 

Do you have a better explanation for Dee Dee not coming forward promptly, to help seek justice for her friend?

She was hiding her head while complete strangers were shouting in the streets.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 23, 2012, 12:29:46 PM
Go do some reading on comparative law.

This is about the hundredth time you've tried change the subject to your criticisms of the US legal system. Do you expect that Zimmerman might be extradited to some other country with a different system? If not, why does it matter?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 23, 2012, 12:50:58 PM
Tracy Martin had the phone for several days

Let me guess. You read that somewhere, and you don't recall where.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 23, 2012, 01:12:49 PM
Let me guess. You read that somewhere, and you don't recall where.

Tracy Martin did not have that phone then, IMO, and I don't think that he has it now.  The only things they would have been able to pick up in the way of personal effects would be items not relevant to the case.  All of his belongings have a tag number to them.  The tea can and the bag of candy were tested.  They have his clothing and shoes.  Maybe the money could be returned and possibly the lighter?  I seriously doubt the phone.

Just IMO. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 23, 2012, 01:36:28 PM
Let me guess. You read that somewhere, and you don't recall where.

You're so precious. And other things that The Hostess wouldn't like me to say but would make me feel better.

I don't have time to dig for it right now so feel free to tell her to delete my post, I'll repost once I find the cite.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: jupchurch on August 23, 2012, 02:58:14 PM
Quote
Martin's father on Sunday night discovered that his son was talking on the phone just before he was slain, Crump said. Tracy Martin figured out his son's cellphone account password and gained access to his son's cellphone records, Crump said.

The records show that on the day of the shooting, Trayvon Martin and the girl spoke on the phone throughout the day multiple times. The final call between the pair was initiated at 7:12 p.m., less than five minutes before Sanford police responded to the shooting site, Crump said.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-03-20/news/fl-trayvon-fort-lauderdale-presser-20120320_1_miami-girl-press-conference-girlfriend (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-03-20/news/fl-trayvon-fort-lauderdale-presser-20120320_1_miami-girl-press-conference-girlfriend)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 23, 2012, 03:28:44 PM
This is about the hundredth time you've tried change the subject to your criticisms of the US legal system. Do you expect that Zimmerman might be extradited to some other country with a different system? If not, why does it matter?

There is nothing wrong with discussing how obvious failings in truth finding and fairness in the Zimmerman case may suggest improvements in US criminal justice.  Are you a lawyer who has a stake in the status quo?  I ask because on average, French judges make more money than French lawyers and I have a hunch that is true in other countries with non adversarial justice systems.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: spectator on August 23, 2012, 03:46:14 PM
This is all wild speculations.  The only fact is that she was on the phone with TM until about the time of the confrontation.


That might be a fact in your world but not mine.

I have no idea if she was on the phone or talking to her mom with TM on hold,  if she was... there's also a chance she heard practically nothing, with all the connection problems she could have heard TM breaking up most of the time, Sometimes there's even a long delay until it finally disconnects, so how could that play into it ?
Countless possibilities.


From her actions you'd assume she didn't hear squat (at least her story).
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 23, 2012, 05:05:41 PM
There is nothing wrong with discussing how obvious failings in truth finding and fairness in the Zimmerman case may suggest improvements in US criminal justice.  Are you a lawyer who has a stake in the status quo?  I ask because on average, French judges make more money than French lawyers and I have a hunch that is true in other countries with non adversarial justice systems.

Except that Jeralyn asked you to do it by PM and to quit talking about it on the treads...  Gees.  o I have to go back and quote her word for word?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 23, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
There is nothing wrong with discussing how obvious failings in truth finding and fairness in the Zimmerman case may suggest improvements in US criminal justice.  Are you a lawyer who has a stake in the status quo?  I ask because on average, French judges make more money than French lawyers and I have a hunch that is true in other countries with non adversarial justice systems.

To my mind, there's something wrong with repeatedly trying to discuss something completely tangential to the topic of threads. You've got a bee in your bonnet about the deficiencies of the US legal system. Fine. But what does the salary of French judges have to do with DeeDee as a witness? I'm not a lawyer with a stake in the status quo; I'm not any kind of lawyer.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 23, 2012, 08:41:02 PM
To my mind, there's something wrong with repeatedly trying to discuss something completely tangential to the topic of threads. You've got a bee in your bonnet about the deficiencies of the US legal system. Fine. But what does the salary of French judges have to do with DeeDee as a witness? I'm not a lawyer with a stake in the status quo; I'm not any kind of lawyer.

Sorry MJW, somehow I thought from the discussion in another thread that you were a lawyer and wanted to defend US style justice no matter how obvious its failings.  The fact that DeeDee was not early on interviewed by an impartial investigator is such a failing.  As far as I am concerned, what Crump and de la Rionda did is a form of tampering with evidence and should be verboten.  Perhaps I will start a thread, elsewhere on the forum, devoted to how the case reflects on the US legal system.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 23, 2012, 09:08:06 PM
Sorry MJW, somehow I thought from the discussion in another thread that you were a lawyer and wanted to defend US style justice no matter how obvious its failings.  The fact that DeeDee was not early on interviewed by an impartial investigator is such a failing.  As far as I am concerned, what Crump and de la Rionda did is a form of tampering with evidence and should be verboten.  Perhaps I will start a thread, elsewhere on the forum, devoted to how the case reflects on the US legal system.

No need to apologize for accusing me of having better credentials than I do. I wish I were a lawyer; I'd be lording it over everyone, every chance I got. I think starting a separate thread is a good idea. Even though I believe my criticism was valid, I probably should have expressed it less harshly.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 24, 2012, 03:35:58 AM
...The fact that DeeDee was not early on interviewed by an impartial investigator is such a failing...

And said impartial investigator was supposed to find out that she existed in the first place how exactly?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 24, 2012, 04:05:59 AM
And said impartial investigator was supposed to find out that she existed in the first place how exactly?

Why did it take so long to get a court order for the phone records? That seems to be an unexplored question.
Title: Walking Back Again
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 24, 2012, 04:10:19 AM

Dee Dee, SAO, 4/3, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) 8:59-9:27
Quote
Dee Dee: And then he's, he ran, from the back.

De la Rionda: Right.

Dee Dee: He say he lost him.

De la Rionda: OK.

Dee Dee: He started walking back again. And I told him, "Keep running."

De la Rionda: So Trayvon said he started walking because he thought he had lost the guy?

Dee Dee: Yeah.

De la Rionda: OK.

Dee Dee: I say, "Keep running."

De la Rionda: OK.

Dee Dee: He say he ain’t gonna run, because he say he right by his father’s house.

De la Rionda: OK.

Dee Dee: So. And in a couple of minutes, he say the man following him again, he behind him.

Martin said something to Dee Dee that she relays to us as Martin 'started walking back again'. I don't see how this can be taken as anything other than Martin continuing, at a walk, to go home. The word 'back' would, in this contex, mean 'back home', as opposed to going out, away from home.

If Dee Dee thought Martin was walking back in the direction of the man who had followed him, she would tell him not to do that. Telling him to run in that direction would be inconsistent with her character as she has portrayed it.

It makes no sense for Martin to give being close to the house as a reason for not running in the other direction. If he's not going to the house, what does the distance to the house have to do with the decision to walk or run?

Why didn't Dee Dee ever express any surprise or curiosity at Martin's sudden decision to turn around and go the other way? Why didn't she ask for an explanation? Why does she seem to have been untroubled by Martin going back into danger?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on August 24, 2012, 06:51:54 AM
Obviously we aren't going to change each others opinion on the subject, but while I admit its a possibility she means he's still walking home, I think its much more likely her words describe his actions of not going inside when he was already by his fathers house.  I believe these 4 "facts" (along with other evidence) make my scenario more likely.  One, TM was within a few hundred yards (mostly likely within 100 yards) of the back of BG's home when he started to run from the back; two, he ran far enough somewhere to be out of breath which means he didn't just duck around the corner 40 feet and hide; three, Dee Dee says he's right by his fathers house when he stops running; four, the face to face confrontation occurs at the 'T', the location TM presumably ran from.   I just don't see how its possible "started walking back again" means he was going in a direction of home when GZ and TM meet.

Dee Dee does by the way show "surprise" at TM walking back as she says she screams at him to run.  Earlier when he was in close contact with GZ she just tells him to run.  After TM losses GZ and "started walking back again" she screams at him to run.  She's talking to TM calmly and telling him to run when he's in close contact with GZ, but when he's lost GZ and is right by his father's house she's screaming at him to run home.  I have doubts that she was actually yelling at him to run at all, but if she is, its likely she yelled because he was going a direction she didn't want him to go because he had lost the guy, but decided to head back.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 24, 2012, 06:59:08 AM
And said impartial investigator was supposed to find out that she existed in the first place how exactly?

If TM's phone is anything like every other cell phones I've seen it would be:
1. Turn on phone
2. Navigate to recent calls
3. Read phone numbers on screen.
4. Call those numbers
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on August 24, 2012, 07:18:13 AM
From what I understand, TM's phone had a password on it which needed to be circumvented before anything could be looked at on it.  I don't know how this changed things legally, but they asked Tracy for access and it appears he never granted their request. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 24, 2012, 07:44:20 AM
From what I understand, TM's phone had a password on it which needed to be circumvented before anything could be looked at on it.  I don't know how this changed things legally, but they asked Tracy for access and it appears he never granted their request.

Is there anything there was on that phone that the police couldn't have found out by subpoena of the phone company records?  How do you know that Tracy knew the password?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on August 24, 2012, 08:01:39 AM
I don't know whether Tracy had a password or not.  They were asking for access to override the password which, without a warrant, required the owners permission.  Tracy said he needed to check with his lawyer and never gave them the access they requested.

I imagine there are things on cell phones that are not available from phone records.  For example, records are kept of when calls and text messages are sent and received, but the content of those calls/texts would not.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: AghastInFL on August 24, 2012, 08:14:18 AM
I dont believe Tracy did know the password to unlock TM's phone, the telephone records as shown by ABC were from a review of his (Tracy) online account there were radio buttons and hyperlinks visible in the printed copies. They were printouts from an online review.

Those online records were available to Tracy Martin as the account owner at any time... he could have reviewed the calls  9am Sunday morning if he so desired.

Did the police ever use the calibrate device to unlock the phone?
I believe as Deb the phone is states evidence and still in their possession.

One last thing, we accept the phone calls as presented are from DD... to my way of thinking there is no evidence I have seen to prove that; perhaps some are, perhaps some are from his cousin or any of his other friends and acquaintances from the Dade county area  all that we know is the calls were to that area not that all calls were to the same number in Dade county.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 24, 2012, 10:15:06 AM
From what I understand, TM's phone had a password on it which needed to be circumvented before anything could be looked at on it.  I don't know how this changed things legally, but they asked Tracy for access and it appears he never granted their request.

Yes. According to the NY Times and other sources, Tracy Martin refused (whether he knew or not, I don't know) to cooperate with the police as far as the password until he talked to a lawyer. Which seems odd to me. I was confused yesterday for some reason and was saying phone when I meant password.

But the long and short of it is that Tracy Martin didn't want to cooperate with the cops until he talked to a lawyer. Seems odd to me unless he was worried about what kind of things might be found on the phone.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 24, 2012, 10:22:31 AM
Officer Santiago's report:

Quote
I noticed a black cell phone near the area of Martin. I then contacted Agent Schor from CCIB to my location and asked him to bring the celabrite  device,a device load any information. Upon Agent Schor’s arrival he told me he could not download any information  because the cell phone battery was  either very low or was not operable because the cell phone had gotten wet because of the current weather conditions (wet and rain.)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 24, 2012, 10:25:42 AM
According to the NY Times and other sources, Tracy Martin refused (whether he knew or not, I don't know) to cooperate with the police as far as the password until he talked to a lawyer.

Its in the police reports (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf) (p. 17).

What they needed from Tracy Martin was the pin number for the account.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 24, 2012, 10:28:46 AM
I just don't see how its possible "started walking back again" means he was going in a direction of home when GZ and TM meet.

You don't see how it could be possible that Dee Dee's story isn't true?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 24, 2012, 10:35:02 AM
Its in the police reports (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf) (p. 17).

What they needed from Tracy Martin was the pin number for the account.

Or password, as reported in various places.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?pagewanted=all
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on August 24, 2012, 10:44:25 AM
Santiago's statements on the phone, Tracy Martin and chronology:

Here (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/santiago1.jpg)
Here (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/cellphonefeb28.jpg)
Here (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/santiagocell2.jpg)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: AghastInFL on August 24, 2012, 11:11:35 AM
Santiago's statements on the phone, Tracy Martin and chronology:

Here (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/santiago1.jpg)
Here (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/cellphonefeb28.jpg)
Here (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/santiagocell2.jpg)
Seems a lot of work that the cellebrite was designed to negate its forensic functions include:

"Physical extraction, decoding and analysis of invaluable data – Call history, SMS messages, contacts, calendar, email, chat, media files, geo tags, passwords, location information (WiFi, cell tower and navigation applications) GPS fixes etc."

I just wonder if a second attempt was ever made, if not why not... that is what the machine is designed for. The t-mobil comet utilizes a standard USB charger port that would certainly pose no issue to power the phone.
I dont like to criticize the SPD but in hindsight they might have done more in this regard.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 24, 2012, 11:14:47 AM
That last one from Santiago. Why would Mr. Martin have to consult a lawyer before releasing the PIN?

Did he ever, btw? I've read conflicting accounts.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on August 24, 2012, 11:37:14 AM
You don't see how it could be possible that Dee Dee's story isn't true?

Dee Dee doesn't have a story about where TM walked or what she meant by he "started walking back again", so I don't know if her story is possible or not.  I don't find it possible that TM ran from somewhere around the 'T' section towards his home, ran far enough away from that area to be out of sight of GZ who was at the 'T', out of breath and right by his father's house, "started walking back again", yet ended up back at the 'T' if he was just walking back home.  I think the fact that TM ended up back at the 'T', that there is little chance the short,pudgy, boot wearing GZ was going to chase down TM and that Dee Dee says she yelled at him after TM "started walking back again" has me believing that the direction he was going wasn't towards home. 

I can concede Dee Dee might have just meant TM was walking again and not specifically back to the 'T', but I don't see any evidence TM was walking back home.  Not possible might be too strong since very little is impossible, so I can amend it to not plausible if thats the hangup.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 24, 2012, 12:59:13 PM
Santiago's statements on the phone, Tracy Martin and chronology:

Here (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/santiago1.jpg)
Here (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/cellphonefeb28.jpg)
Here (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/santiagocell2.jpg)

I still don't understand why the police didn't subpoena Trayvon's phone records instead of diddling with the phone itself.  That is certainly a most common kind of subpoena.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on August 24, 2012, 01:11:30 PM
If TM's phone is anything like every other cell phones I've seen it would be:
1. Turn on phone
2. Navigate to recent calls
3. Read phone numbers on screen.
4. Call those numbers

You left out step zero:  recharge battery

Apparently that was a problem.

They had some phone hacking gadget called a Cellebrite or something like that, but couldn't get it to work.

Of course that was when the phone was of importance in identifying a dead john doe, and they had that done by noon the next day if not earlier.

By the time they started thinking of the phone as a possible source of evidence about the shooting, the legalities of the degree to which they could search it may have changed.

That's something I'd like to hear a real lawyer weigh in on.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 24, 2012, 01:11:59 PM
I still don't understand why the police didn't subpoena Trayvon's phone records instead of diddling with the phone itself.  That is certainly a most common kind of subpoena.

Would records show any pictures or video that might be on the phone?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 24, 2012, 01:25:12 PM
I still don't understand why the police didn't subpoena Trayvon's phone records instead of diddling with the phone itself.  That is certainly a most common kind of subpoena.

According to a March 21 story in the Miami-Herald, they were subpoenaing the records:

Quote
As for checking the boy’s phone records, Trayvon’s phone was locked and detectives were in the process of getting a subpoena for the records, [Sanford police spokesman Sgt. David] Morgenstern said. He stressed that the department had pleaded for anyone with information to come forward, suggesting that the girl should have called investigators and the family should have turned the phone records over.

While it may seem to us they could have done so more quickly, they may not have thought the cellphone records would likely be important evidence, and they may have thought it would be quicker to get the PIN from the grieving family, eager to aid any way they could in the investigation into Martin's death.

Since there's nothing to indicate Tracy ever turned over the PIN, I think the records were delivered in response to the subpoena.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 24, 2012, 01:47:09 PM
You left out step zero:  recharge battery

Apparently that was a problem.

They had some phone hacking gadget called a Cellebrite or something like that, but couldn't get it to work.

Of course that was when the phone was of importance in identifying a dead john doe, and they had that done by noon the next day if not earlier.

By the time they started thinking of the phone as a possible source of evidence about the shooting, the legalities of the degree to which they could search it may have changed.

That's something I'd like to hear a real lawyer weigh in on.

They did download the phone's memory on Feb. 28 (page 16 of the first PDF). I have no idea how cellphone passwords work, but possibly the memory is encrypted. They believed they didn't need a search warrant for the phone information (also page 16).
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 24, 2012, 02:02:46 PM
Or password, as reported in various places.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?pagewanted=all

From the article:
Quote
Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for the Martins, said that Mr. Martin was carrying a T-Mobile Comet phone and that the police contacted his father a day or two after the shooting to get the password, but he did not know it.

The problem is, Crump's lips were moving. The police asked for the account PIN, not the password. Tracy must have known the PIN, since he told the police he'd have to contact Crump before disclosing it. If he didn't know it, what good would it do to contact Crump?

Page 17, 1st discovery PDF:
Quote
On March 5, 2012, I contacted Mr. Martin (victims father) via cell phone and asked if I could obtain the pin number from the victims cell phone. Mr. Martin stated he would contact his lawyer before releasing that information.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 24, 2012, 02:07:46 PM
You left out step zero:  recharge battery

Apparently that was a problem.

 

The scene plays it self out - Serino and others arguing if they could recharge a cell phone without having charged it previously. If so what statue? Loud ringing?

I do wonder what TM's ringtone was
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on August 24, 2012, 02:09:39 PM
From the article:
The problem is, Crump's lips were moving. The police asked for the account PIN, not the password. Tracy must have known the PIN, since he told the police he'd have to contact Crump before disclosing it. If he didn't know it, what good would it do to contact Crump?

Page 17, 1st discovery PDF:

It seems to me that the account holder can always recover a PIN once his credentials are validated
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 24, 2012, 02:20:21 PM
It seems to me that the account holder can always recover a PIN once his credentials are validated

Almost certainly. Crump was once again fudging the truth.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 24, 2012, 02:35:35 PM
From the article:
The problem is, Crump's lips were moving. The police asked for the account PIN, not the password. Tracy must have known the PIN, since he told the police he'd have to contact Crump before disclosing it. If he didn't know it, what good would it do to contact Crump?

Page 17, 1st discovery PDF:

Yes.

My question is still: why did Tracy feel he had to or needed to or should talk to an attorney (whether Crump or just his sister or sister in law (I forget)) before he turned over the PIN--otherwise, just say "I don't know the PIN"?

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 24, 2012, 03:31:52 PM
Would records show any pictures or video that might be on the phone?

Of course not.  Is any of that stuff listed as part of future discovery?  Do we know if anybody has been able to access that material?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 24, 2012, 03:48:50 PM
Yes.

My question is still: why did Tracy feel he had to or needed to or should talk to an attorney (whether Crump or just his sister or sister in law (I forget)) before he turned over the PIN--otherwise, just say "I don't know the PIN"?

As Lousy1 pointed out, even if he didn't know it, he could almost certainly get it. If he'd been asked for the password instead, he probably wouldn't know it and couldn't get it. For all we know, he could have said he didn't know the PIN, the police officer may then have suggested how he could obtain it, and then he may have said he'd first need to talk with his lawyer. I'm not, of course, saying that's what happened; I'm just saying all we know is that Tracy Martin wouldn't disclose the PIN till he'd spoken to his lawyer. We can also be pretty sure he never did reveal the PIN.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 24, 2012, 03:51:44 PM
Of course not.  Is any of that stuff listed as part of future discovery?  Do we know if anybody has been able to access that material?

Why "Of course not"? The discovery isn't listed till it's given to the defense. I don't see how we'd know what might be in future discovery.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 24, 2012, 03:52:19 PM
As Lousy1 pointed out, even if he didn't know it, he could almost certainly get it. If he'd been asked for the password instead, he probably wouldn't know it and couldn't get it. For all we know, he could have said he didn't know the PIN, the police officer may then have suggested how he could obtain it, and then he may have said he'd first need to talk with his lawyer. I'm not, of course, saying that's what happened; I'm just saying all we know is that Tracy Martin wouldn't disclose the PIN till he'd spoken to his lawyer. We can also be pretty sure he never did reveal the PIN.

LOL. I know he didn't, and apparently never did.

I also agree with L1 that he could've gotten it.

My question is more hypothetical and probably out of bounds for this thread (and maybe the board at this time?): why didn't he?

Especially since later he'd be found criticizing the way the SPD handled the investigation, no thanks to his small part in impeding things.


What was he afraid might be found on the phone?

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 24, 2012, 03:55:11 PM
Of course not.  Is any of that stuff listed as part of future discovery?  Do we know if anybody has been able to access that material?

Ricky:

You asked why they'd want to actually access the phone rather than just seeing phone records (which are pretty dry and sterile, all in all).

I offered you a reason--maybe they were looking for videos or pictures.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 24, 2012, 04:03:50 PM
Especially since later he'd be found criticizing the way the SPD handled the investigation, no thanks to his small part in impeding things.

I have no doubt that Crump was the source for the media stories (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/03/trayvon-martin-sanford-florida.html) that had Tracy doing what the police failed to do: checking Martin's cellphone contacts. The guy's got tons of nerve.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on August 24, 2012, 04:48:22 PM
Some interesting analysis of the discovery by Diwataman. The FDLE actually printed the phone number of the prepaid anonymous phone DeeDee was using at the time. Crumps release of the barely blurred phone record confirm it. "Now, it should be now under my name." Why was she using an anonymous prepaid phone and is that why Team Martin had to hire a PI, to find out who was acually using that number at that time?

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/trayvons-phone-records/#more-594
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 24, 2012, 05:00:34 PM
Don't a lot of people use those pre-paid phones?

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on August 24, 2012, 05:08:13 PM
Don't a lot of people use those pre-paid phones?

Sure they do, but don't they usually know where they bought the phone from? The phone number listed by FDLE shows Unlisted, Wireless, METRO PCS, INC. DeeDee claimed it was T-Mobile (after BDLR's leading). BDLR seems aware that it was her number in Feb but not necessarily her current number. Don't most people keep their same number for their personal phone?

Quote
BDLR: OK, what was your telephone number back in February of this year, 2012?

Dee Dee:  [Redacted]

BDLR: And is that a cell phone?

Dee Dee:  Yes.


BDLR: OK, and is that phone number under your name or under somebody else’s name?

Dee Dee:  Now, it should be now under my name.

BDLR: And do you know what the provider is…is it T-Mobile? Or do you know?

Dee Dee:  Yeah, T-Mobile…[mumbles]…I think.


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 24, 2012, 05:57:38 PM
I don't know if you can keep the same number on the pre-paid phones.

I have a couple of theories on the whole thing but...you know.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on August 24, 2012, 06:04:27 PM
Why "Of course not"? The discovery isn't listed till it's given to the defense. I don't see how we'd know what might be in future discovery.

I think I said "Of course not" in answer to whether Trayvon's videos and pictures would be part of phone company records.  Am I wrong about that?  The reason to subpoena the records would be to find out it he was talking to somebody before getting killed.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 24, 2012, 06:34:07 PM
I think I said "Of course not" in answer to whether Trayvon's videos and pictures would be part of phone company records.  Am I wrong about that?  The reason to subpoena the records would be to find out it he was talking to somebody before getting killed.

You said of course not, setting up a straw man. You ignored my response (and, since you were responding to my post, setting up the straw man and ignoring the response is a little dishonest).

I never said the videos and pictures would be part of phone company records. Of course they wouldn't. Even a blathering, gibbering moron knows that.

That might be why they wanted to examine the phone v. sterile phone company records.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: turbo6 on August 24, 2012, 07:02:06 PM
I'm sure this has mentioned before, but have they not just popped the memory card out of the phone and explored the pictures/videos whatever else is on it?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: jupchurch on August 24, 2012, 09:29:46 PM
Ricky:

You asked why they'd want to actually access the phone rather than just seeing phone records (which are pretty dry and sterile, all in all).

I offered you a reason--maybe they were looking for videos or pictures.

According to this reference, most cell phone companies don't retain the content of text messages.

http://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-location-tracking-request-response-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart (http://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-location-tracking-request-response-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 24, 2012, 10:32:35 PM
I think I said "Of course not" in answer to whether Trayvon's videos and pictures would be part of phone company records.  Am I wrong about that?  The reason to subpoena the records would be to find out it he was talking to somebody before getting killed.

I assumed incorrectly that the question that followed was rhetorical: "Is any of that stuff listed as part of future discovery?"  I thought you meant, Of course not, or we would have seen it listed as part of future discovery. I should have realized it wasn't, because the next question is obviously a regular question. Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 24, 2012, 10:37:16 PM
According to this reference, most cell phone companies don't retain the content of text messages.

http://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-location-tracking-request-response-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart (http://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-location-tracking-request-response-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart)

That's kind of annoying. I wonder about undelivered text messages. I would expect that any received text messages sent by DeeDee would still be recoverable from Martin's phone.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on August 24, 2012, 10:41:36 PM
I'm sure this has mentioned before, but have they not just popped the memory card out of the phone and explored the pictures/videos whatever else is on it?

On Feb 28, police copied the memory. It's funny that we haven't heard about anything they found, but considering Martin's cellphone records are just being turned over to the defense, maybe it's not so surprising.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 08, 2012, 07:53:48 AM
I was rereading some of the 284 page DocDump and I didn't realize that Sybrina Fulton had contacted Dee Dee, talked to her mother who preferred that her daughter stay unidentified or asked Dee Dee  to talk to the police.  If she is referring Dee Dee to the police, I would think that this is before Crump got so involved and very early on.  It was after the memorial but there is no specific date for this conversation.

Apparently Dee Dee and a friend (?) went by her apartment after that request.  Ms. Fulton talked to her outside of her apartment.  Dee Dee didn't want to talk about what TM had said.  If he was afraid of Zimmerman, why wouldn't DD tell Ms Fulton since it would help her cause in seeking justice for her son?

This comes from a 4/2/12 interview conducted by T C O'Steen and Bernie de la Rionda with Sybrina F. 

Page 37 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/99916379/Documents-Given-to-the-Defendant-R-1)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 08, 2012, 09:24:01 AM
  If she is referring Dee Dee to the police, I would think that this is before Crump got so involved and very early on.

Do you mean that you think Fulton knew about Dee Dee and didn't tell Tracy Martin?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 08, 2012, 12:13:57 PM
I thought Sybrina stated she'd never heard of D.D.?

She says on that page that the first she heard about her or at least her name mentioned is from around Christmas.

For No Matter,  I have always believed that Tracy Martin found that cell bill information very early on.  Not just prior to DD interview with Crump.  For Petes Sake, all he had to do was go online and he could see those records.  He had to have had some knowledge or he wouldn't have declined to help the investigation into his own son's death by letting them have access to that phone.  He told them he needed to talk to his lawyer first.  Why would he have concerns about what or who TM was conversing/texting with on a phone?   I think they either had to subpoena the records or get a warrant.

I suspect he tried with Dee Dee and that is how Sybrina got the information to contact her.

Somehow nothing really fits right if you try and do this within a day or so of the Crump interview.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on September 08, 2012, 12:56:05 PM
I thought Sybrina stated she'd never heard of D.D.?

In this interview from last month, Sybrina still maintains Trayvon never had a girl friend (@ 6:50). What did she know about DeeDee around christmas time? Why was Trayvon always talking to girls, as she also states in this video? Is she in denial or is she trying too hard to sell the innocent little boy fantasy? She also claims in the SAO interview that she did not know of any twitter account but in this video she stresses the importance of twitter and teaching others how to use it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHPE_V8i5ZQ

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on September 08, 2012, 09:30:01 PM
Tracy learned of the phone records first and called DeeDee. He told her his lawyer would call her. ( p. 40 of 284 (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/tracyinterviewonDD.jpg).)

Sybrina learned of the records (obviously from Tracy) and called Dee Dee in March. p37 of 284 (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/sybrinainterviewDD.jpg). She doesn't say DeeDee didn't want to talk about the phone call with TM, she just says DeeDee was emotional and they didn't discuss it.

Tracy and Sybrina were interviewed together by O'Steen and De La Rionda on 3/26 -- their lawyers were also present. See p. 28 of 284 (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/sybtracy326.jpg). On that date they said Trayvon went to Sanford on Wednesday.

On 4/2, they were interviewed again by O'Steen and De La Rionda at Sybrina's apartment. Sybrina was interviewed at 3:20 pm (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/sybrinatues.jpg) and Tracy at 4:35 pm (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/tracytuesday.jpg). Both changed the date TM went to Sanford from Weds. to Tues. 

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on September 08, 2012, 09:45:23 PM
Why was Trayvon always talking to girls, as she also states in this video?

Because he was. He was talking to Ashley Burch and Aiyanna Fleming (who still went to Carol) as well as Dee Dee. Ashley and Aiyanna gave interviews to the paper and went on TV and said they were TM's best firends. Burch said she talked to TM the morning he died. Aiyanna said she and TM were going to go ice skating March 3.  See  here (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/v-fullstory/2708960/trayvon-martin-a-typical-teen.html), here (http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/04/11/trayvon-martin-classmates-react-to-news-of-zimmerman-charges/) and here (http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_8700.shtml).

It's probably that TM had two sets of friends, one at each school, Kopp and  Carol and they may not have known each other.

Quote
That was one of my best friends, somebody I talked to every day, he was very nice. It was shocking,” said Ashley Burch. “You lose people but you wouldn’t think you would lose somebody that close.”

Burch said she talked with Martin on the phone the morning of his death. Another friend, Aiyanna Fleming said she and Martin were supposed to go ice skating on March 3rd.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on September 08, 2012, 09:50:53 PM
On Feb 28, police copied the memory. It's funny that we haven't heard about anything they found, but considering Martin's cellphone records are just being turned over to the defense, maybe it's not so surprising.

Here's the chronology (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/cellchron.jpg) of attempts to get info off the cell phone. I put them in one graphic.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 08, 2012, 10:15:50 PM
Because he was. He was talking to Ashley Burch and Aiyanna Fleming (who still went to Carol) as well as Dee Dee. Ashley and Aiyanna gave interviews to the paper and went on TV and said they were TM's best firends. Burch said she talked to TM the morning he died. Aiyanna said she and TM were going to go ice skating March 3.  See  here (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/v-fullstory/2708960/trayvon-martin-a-typical-teen.html), here (http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/04/11/trayvon-martin-classmates-react-to-news-of-zimmerman-charges/) and here (http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_8700.shtml).

It's probably that TM had two sets of friends, one at each school, Kopp and  Carol and they may not have known each other.

I was reading one of those articles that Jeralyn posted and something struck me.
Quote
Trayvon spent his freshman year and much of his sophomore year at Carol City, where on Thursday, more than 1,000 students walked out to honor him and fight for justice in the case.

Why did his mother pull him out of Carol near the end of his sophomore year?  It isn't typical to pull a kid out of one high school before the end of the year, especially since they are only a few miles apart.  After the transfer, she said his grades were a little better at Carol.

Quote
“I thought Krop was a better school and I wanted a different environment for him. My oldest son has graduated from there.’’

Almost everything about his behavior and attitude in the article is from teachers at Carol.  Only one or two teens interviewed from Krop knew him from middle schools.

I know this isn't the right thread for this so I may start one for Sybrina Fulton when I get back from the store.  I thought we already had one but I couldn't find it.  Sorry.


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 09, 2012, 02:51:36 AM
She also claims in the SAO interview that she did not know of any twitter account but in this video she stresses the importance of twitter and teaching others how to use it.

On the video she is talking about political activism. What does that have to do with whether Trayvon had a twitter account when he was alive?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 09, 2012, 03:32:21 AM
After the transfer, she said his grades were a little better at Carol.

She didn't say better than what. I think her statement is ambiguous. I don't know if she meant that at Carol his grades were better than they had been previously, or better than they were later at Krop.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 09, 2012, 06:19:51 AM
She didn't say better than what. I think her statement is ambiguous. I don't know if she meant that at Carol his grades were better than they had been previously, or better than they were later at Krop.

I started a thread for Sybrina Fulton so we can discuss that there.  It was too o/t concerning Dee Dee.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 14, 2012, 10:58:13 AM
In this interview from last month, Sybrina still maintains Trayvon never had a girl friend (@ 6:50). What did she know about DeeDee around christmas time?

Dee Dee told de la Rionda that she was 'getting' to be 'kind of' Martin's girlfriend. To me that sounds like a long way from actually being his girlfriend.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 14, 2012, 11:37:39 AM
In the subpoenas issued this morning, there includes a part that says that "any minor subpoenaed for testimony has the right to be accompanied by a parent or guardian at all times."

I would think that Dee Dee is now officially on notice for this.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on September 21, 2012, 02:20:59 PM
I was just rereading an old article and noticed Crump claiming Trayvon said “What are you stopping me for?” This must be from his original interview with DeeDee. How could GZ have been ‘stopping’ him when Trayvon was the one who approached and confronted according to DeeDee? Why did DeeDee later change it to “why you following me for?” We really need a clear version of his original interview.

Quote
While walking to the store, Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend, whom he had been talking to for over 6½ hours throughout the day, the family’s attorney said, citing phone records. The girl, who did not want to be identified, said she told Martin to run, but he refused, the family attorney said.
“What are you stopping me for?” Martin asked a man later identified as neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, according to the girl.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/us/trayvon-martin-profile/index.html
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on September 21, 2012, 02:44:17 PM
I was just rereading an old article and noticed Crump claiming Trayvon said “What are you stopping me for?

Very interesting, Redbrow. That brings to mind a related issue: why aren't the interviews Crump did with DeeDee included in the discovery turned over to the defense? Did the state not obtain them? How could that be possible?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on September 21, 2012, 05:59:10 PM
the audio of the Crump-Dee Dee interview was turned over at the same time as the state's interview with Dee Dee. But you can't hear it, too much noise. Which is interesting because ABC's Matt Guttman was on the call with Crump and Dee Dee and the snippets ABC has played are very clear.

Diwataman thinks  (http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/examining-w8-crump-interview/)they reduced the sound quality by converting it to another format before releasing to the defense. I'm hoping O'Mara subpoenas ABC's version.  It's a technical post about sample rates, but in essence from the tests he did:

Quote
Listening to the audio I believe the sample rate has been reduced to such a degree to begin the process of rendering it inaudible. It was my experience with audio that caused me to believe this but I wanted to be sure, keeping in mind the source was a speaker on a phone and recorded possibly from a hand-held recorder.

....Checking the audio file directly downloaded from the State Discovery site and looking at the settings we find an audio bit rate, of 1411kbps which tells me this file was recorded and/or saved at a sample rate of 44,100Kz, what should be good, clear quality considering already assumed factors. But as we hear this audio is not good or clear. This aspect leads me to believe something truly nefarious has happened here.

....It appears the audio was re-sampled to a very low sample rate then saved, then re-sampled again at 44,100Kz. Simply speaking imagine taking a clear sharp video then you edit it so the quality is so low it’s unrecognizable and save it as such. Then you reopen that file and edit it to a higher bit rate or quality and save it. What you end up with is a file that is large and by looking at the file size relative to the time of the video one would think it’s a high quality video but upon viewing they would find otherwise leading them to believe there was another cause for the poor quality.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on September 21, 2012, 07:50:16 PM
the audio of the Crump-Dee Dee interview was turned over at the same time as the state's interview with Dee Dee.

Oops. I forgot about that.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 21, 2012, 08:03:31 PM
Trayvon was the one who approached and confronted according to DeeDee?

Dee Dee didn't say Martin approached Zimmerman. She said Martin told her Zimmerman was approaching him.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on September 21, 2012, 08:42:41 PM
Dee Dee didn't say Martin approached Zimmerman. She said Martin told her Zimmerman was approaching him.

DeeDee said Trayvon was near his dad's house. Zimmerman was nowhere near Brandy's house. A reasonable person can deduce Trayvon must have approached Zimmerman to arrive at the location of the confrontation. DeeDee said Trayvon initiated the verbal confrontation.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on September 21, 2012, 08:47:51 PM
Dee Dee didn't say Martin approached Zimmerman. She said Martin told her Zimmerman was approaching him.

Approach also applies to speaking to (someone) for the first time about a proposal or request. "Why you following me for?" or “What are you stopping me for?"

Definition of approach from Oxford English Dictionary
verb
[with object]
1. come near or nearer to (someone or something) in distance or time:
the train approached the main line
[no object]:
winter was approaching
(as adjective approaching)
an approaching car
come close to (a number, level, or standard) in quality or quantity:
the population will approach 12 million by the end of the decade
archaic bring nearer:
all those changes shall serve to approach him the faster to the blest mansion
2. speak to (someone) for the first time about a proposal or request:
the department had been approached about funding
3. start to deal with (a situation or problem) in a certain way:
one must approach the matter with caution
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 21, 2012, 09:04:10 PM
Approach also applies to speaking to (someone) for the first time about a proposal or request.

That was covered by 'confronted'.

 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 21, 2012, 09:32:01 PM
Zimmerman was nowhere near Brandy's house.

One might consider the whole back yard area to be 'right by' all of the houses that share it.

Quote
A reasonable person can deduce Trayvon must have approached Zimmerman to arrive at the location of the confrontation.

If Martin walked in a direction that brought him closer to Zimmerman, without Martin intending or expecting that, he would be 'approaching' Zimmerman in one sense of the word, but not a pertinent one.

Dee Dee clearly said that Zimmerman was approaching Martin just before Martin confronted Zimmerman.

Dee Dee did not, in the statements known to us, say that Martin was walking in a direction that he expected to lead to Zimmerman. She said that when Martin saw Zimmerman on the occasion we are discussing, Zimmerman was behind Martin.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on September 22, 2012, 08:11:46 AM
One might consider the whole back yard area to be 'right by' all of the houses that share it.

If Martin walked in a direction that brought him closer to Zimmerman, without Martin intending or expecting that, he would be 'approaching' Zimmerman in one sense of the word, but not a pertinent one.

Dee Dee clearly said that Zimmerman was approaching Martin just before Martin confronted Zimmerman.

Dee Dee did not, in the statements known to us, say that Martin was walking in a direction that he expected to lead to Zimmerman. She said that when Martin saw Zimmerman on the occasion we are discussing, Zimmerman was behind Martin.

So wait...you'll argue for pages about the meanings of certain words and phrases, then turn around and assign "right by" to essentially the entire complex?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 22, 2012, 08:24:16 AM
One might consider the whole back yard area to be 'right by' all of the houses that share it.

If Martin walked in a direction that brought him closer to Zimmerman, without Martin intending or expecting that, he would be 'approaching' Zimmerman in one sense of the word, but not a pertinent one.

Dee Dee clearly said that Zimmerman was approaching Martin just before Martin confronted Zimmerman.

Dee Dee did not, in the statements known to us, say that Martin was walking in a direction that he expected to lead to Zimmerman. She said that when Martin saw Zimmerman on the occasion we are discussing, Zimmerman was behind Martin.

We have gone around about her "start walking back" statement.  She says a couple of minutes passed and that time line pretty much matches there, too.  Even with her odd way of phrasing things, I don't believe she meant that he was back to walking.

That still doesn't answer the question of why Martin, in such fear, would even be back in the area of the "T" intersection the place where he was last scene by ZImmerman.  He had some 20+ seconds head start of Zimmerman.  I can never get an answer that is at least within reason for that question.

Even if he was "near" the Green townhouse, then he either had to be lying in wait or doubling back.  IMO, I think he doubled back and hid.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on September 22, 2012, 08:29:44 AM

Even if he was "near" the Green townhouse, then he either had to be lying in wait or doubling back.  IMO, I think he doubled back and hid.

Was he right by GZ when he hid?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 22, 2012, 12:07:44 PM
Was he right by GZ when he hid?

Since I wasn't there....  ((shrugs))  I do think he was close enough to overhear Zimmerman talking to the dispatcher though.  However he got there...  Zimmerman says he came up on him from behind his (left?)shoulder so that would put him (GZ) slightly west of the "T"  which corresponds closely with where his key/flashlight was located.

Do you have a reasonable explanation for Martin being at that "T" intersection?  Dee Dee says he was out of breath and tired.  Just from jetting around the corner?  I have tried a thousand scenarios in my head and I can't come up with one.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on September 22, 2012, 12:55:01 PM
Since I wasn't there....  ((shrugs))  I do think he was close enough to overhear Zimmerman talking to the dispatcher though.  However he got there...  Zimmerman says he came up on him from behind his (left?)shoulder so that would put him (GZ) slightly west of the "T"  which corresponds closely with where his key/flashlight was located.

Do you have a reasonable explanation for Martin being at that "T" intersection?  Dee Dee says he was out of breath and tired.  Just from jetting around the corner?  I have tried a thousand scenarios in my head and I can't come up with one.

If he was close enough to hear Zimmerman on the phone and realize that he was talking to the cops then he knew the cops were on the way.

I'd think even a 17 year old on a testosterone high would see the folly of attacking Zimmerman under those circumstances.   As far as we know he didn't have a whole lot of experience beating people to death in record time and slipping away undetected.

Since Zimmerman couldn't actually testify to anything illegal that Martin had done up to that point, he had no reason to permanently silence him.  All he'd have to do is tell the police "I was walking back from the store and this creepy looking guy in the truck started following me".

If he was a hard core gangbanger on his own turf, or his IQ was about half of what it actually was, I could maybe see him doubling back to attack Zimmerman, but barring either of those circumstances, I don't see what would have triggered that level of both hostility and foolishness in this kid.  If his temper was that easily inflamed, it's difficult to believe there was no prior evidence of that, or that said prior evidence could be covered up and contained for so long now.

Even taking a very negative view of Martin, it's hard to make it add up.

Even if you leave the conversation with the young lady out altogether as though it never happened, it would seem that he'd have to somehow not know that Zimmerman had the cops on the way.

I'm not taking sides, I'm just trying to figure out what happened, and "more or less semi-average teenager suddenly becomes homicidal maniac" seems a low probability explanation.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on September 22, 2012, 01:06:20 PM
I'm not taking sides, I'm just trying to figure out what happened, and "more or less semi-average teenager suddenly becomes homicidal maniac" seems a low probability explanation.

As I keep telling you Unitron, you will never know what happened.  All the legal system needs to do is determine, if it is more likely than not at the Denis hearing or reasonable at a trial that Zimmerman had no alternative but to shoot Martin.  By the way, has the prosecution said definitely that it won't call witnesses attesting to Martin's non violent character at trial?  It is getting sort of late to list them.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on September 22, 2012, 01:35:45 PM
Please keep this thread to Dee Dee. Thanks.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on September 22, 2012, 02:48:10 PM
If he was close enough to hear Zimmerman on the phone and realize that he was talking to the cops then he knew the cops were on the way.

I'd think even a 17 year old on a testosterone high would see the folly of attacking Zimmerman under those circumstances.   As far as we know he didn't have a whole lot of experience beating people to death in record time and slipping away undetected.

Since Zimmerman couldn't actually testify to anything illegal that Martin had done up to that point, he had no reason to permanently silence him.  All he'd have to do is tell the police "I was walking back from the store and this creepy looking guy in the truck started following me".

If he was a hard core gangbanger on his own turf, or his IQ was about half of what it actually was, I could maybe see him doubling back to attack Zimmerman, but barring either of those circumstances, I don't see what would have triggered that level of both hostility and foolishness in this kid.  If his temper was that easily inflamed, it's difficult to believe there was no prior evidence of that, or that said prior evidence could be covered up and contained for so long now.

Even taking a very negative view of Martin, it's hard to make it add up.

Even if you leave the conversation with the young lady out altogether as though it never happened, it would seem that he'd have to somehow not know that Zimmerman had the cops on the way.

I'm not taking sides, I'm just trying to figure out what happened, and "more or less semi-average teenager suddenly becomes homicidal maniac" seems a low probability explanation.

1. People do stupid stuff all the time. The newspapers are full of it. People shoot people, stab people, attack, beat people and set people on fire for no reason. Why should young Mr. Martin get a pass form you?

2. How do you know what his IQ actually was?

3. There may or may not be other evidence of prior hostility. Just because Jeralyn doesn't want us to to talk about it here--which puts us at a disadvantage when trying to have a conversation with someone like you who for some reason takes the position that since we can't talk about it, it didn't happen.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on September 22, 2012, 04:56:56 PM
As I keep telling you Unitron, you will never know what happened.  All the legal system needs to do is determine, if it is more likely than not at the Denis hearing or reasonable at a trial that Zimmerman had no alternative but to shoot Martin.  By the way, has the prosecution said definitely that it won't call witnesses attesting to Martin's non violent character at trial?  It is getting sort of late to list them.

I don't know what the prosecution plans to do.  I still haven't figured out exactly what it is that makes them think they have a case.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: AghastInFL on September 22, 2012, 05:07:37 PM
If he was close enough to hear Zimmerman on the phone and realize that he was talking to the cops then he knew the cops were on the way.

I'd think even a 17 year old on a testosterone high would see the folly of attacking Zimmerman under those circumstances.   As far as we know he didn't have a whole lot of experience beating people to death in record time and slipping away undetected.

Since Zimmerman couldn't actually testify to anything illegal that Martin had done up to that point, he had no reason to permanently silence him.  All he'd have to do is tell the police "I was walking back from the store and this creepy looking guy in the truck started following me".

If he was a hard core gangbanger on his own turf, or his IQ was about half of what it actually was, I could maybe see him doubling back to attack Zimmerman, but barring either of those circumstances, I don't see what would have triggered that level of both hostility and foolishness in this kid.  If his temper was that easily inflamed, it's difficult to believe there was no prior evidence of that, or that said prior evidence could be covered up and contained for so long now.

Even taking a very negative view of Martin, it's hard to make it add up.

Even if you leave the conversation with the young lady out altogether as though it never happened, it would seem that he'd have to somehow not know that Zimmerman had the cops on the way.

I'm not taking sides, I'm just trying to figure out what happened, and "more or less semi-average teenager suddenly becomes homicidal maniac" seems a low probability explanation.
two words: Knockout game.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on September 22, 2012, 05:55:56 PM
two words: Knockout game.

How often does that involve a single attacker with no audience?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: AghastInFL on September 22, 2012, 06:25:45 PM
How often does that involve a single attacker with no audience?
Dee Dee; We know he had at least one in audience.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 22, 2012, 07:08:44 PM
Dee Dee; We know he had at least one in audience.

At last we circle back to topic.

We don't know that Dee Dee was an 'audience' for the physical confrontation. The only evidence for that is Dee Dee's statements, in which she also explicitly denied that Martin told her he planned to attack Zimmerman.

Thanks for bringing 'knockout game' my attention. I hadn't heard the phrase before.

From a quick google, it seems the game normally involves groups of males, and the fad has not spread to Miami. Victims are often elderly or otherwise obviously vulnerable. Except for that, they are chosen at random.

I don't think Martin's alleged attack on Zimmerman comes close to fitting the knockout game profile.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 22, 2012, 08:21:40 PM
I don't believe she meant that he was back to walking.

I don't either. I think she used 'back' to mean 'back home'.

I don't think it is remotely plausible that Dee Dee meant to say that she understood Martin to have turned away from going homeward to go in some other direction, and she did not object or ask for an explanation. That's not consistent with her self-characterization prior to that point.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 22, 2012, 09:20:01 PM
I don't either. I think she used 'back' to mean 'back home'.

I don't think it is remotely plausible that Dee Dee meant to say that she understood Martin to have turned away from going homeward to go in some other direction, and she did not object or ask for an explanation. That's not consistent with her self-characterization prior to that point.

That still begs the question.  How did he end up back at the "T"?  Dee reenforces that Martin had lost Zimmerman.  She says it a few of times so there is no confusion on her part.  The last time she mentions Zimmerman before the altercation, he is in his car so Martin never even saw him get out of it before he (GZ) appeared at the "T".   Dee also emphazies how tired and out of breath Martin is.  From running around the corner?  She uses it for the reason she deduced he was not going to run.

Zimmerman, in the meantime, has "no idea where that kid is."

So two people have no idea where each other is.  One has a pretty good head start. And a couple of minutes later find each other at basically the same time?

I cannot wrap my head around a scenario that places Martin back at that intersection.  Even without DeeDee's statements because you can hear it on the NEN, too. 

And no, I don't think he was lying in wait.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 24, 2012, 05:06:10 AM

Quote
The last time she mentions Zimmerman before the altercation, he is in his car so Martin never even saw him get out of it before he (GZ) appeared at the "T".

De la Rionda asked Dee Dee that very question. She did say that Martin didn't tell her that he saw Zimmerman get out of the car, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen.

The rest of Dee Dee's answer isn't very clear, but she seems to have said that Martin saw Zimmerman out of the car, and following Martin, on at least one occasion before the 'couple of minutes.'

Quote
Dee also emphazies how tired and out of breath Martin is. From running around the corner?

Dee Dee didn't say Martin was tired before the 'couple of minutes.' The first time she talked about Martin breathing hard, she emphasized him being frightened.

It was de la Rionda who used the phrase 'out of breath', but Dee Dee did say 'yeah' to it.

I don't think it's implausible that Martin would be out of breath after running for a few seconds. We don't know how much walking he had been doing in the hour since he left home. It seems his football days were in the past, so we can't assume he was in good training either.

Quote
She uses it for the reason she deduced he was not going to run.

Again, that was after the 'couple of minutes.'
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Kyreth on September 24, 2012, 06:28:54 AM

I don't think it's implausible that Martin would be out of breath after running for a few seconds. We don't know how much walking he had been doing in the hour since he left home. It seems his football days were in the past, so we can't assume he was in good training either.


"To see all these athletes put Trayvon in the same sentence with them, it feels real good. Trayvon was an excellent athlete and if he could hear them saying his name, he would be so moved by it."

- Tracy Martin
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 24, 2012, 07:14:32 AM
"To see all these athletes put Trayvon in the same sentence with them, it feels real good. Trayvon was an excellent athlete and if he could hear them saying his name, he would be so moved by it."

- Tracy Martin

Is there anything more objective than paternal bragging?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on September 24, 2012, 07:45:50 AM
Is there anything more objective than paternal bragging?

Is there anything less objective than someone sitting behind a keyboard seeking to advance their own agenda no matter what?

You say you don't think it's implausible TM would be out of breath--but unless there's something you haven't told us, you never met the dude. OTOH, Tracy Martin had (at least a couple of times) and is probably in a better position to, you know, know.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 24, 2012, 08:12:58 AM
Is there anything more objective than paternal bragging?

There is no reason, medically, to think that Martin couldn't have jogged/skipped or ran his way around that corner without "breathing hard."  It stops me every time.  I don't remember the exact footage but I would think it couldn't have been more that 150-175 feet or so to turn down that dogwalk from his position nearer to the truck.

Dee Dee says times over that he was tired and breathing hard.  "Why are you not running? He say "I'm not go run" cause he tired, but I know he tired." 

AnnoyedBeyond.  Every time No Matter posts anything you are right behind him with a comment, and it is never a favorable comment.  It has gotten to the point where if I see a NoMatter post, I can take it to the bank that you will be right there.   Even something as mundane as posting an observation about a parent bragging on his child... 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 24, 2012, 08:22:06 AM
There is no reason, medically, to think that Martin couldn't have jogged/skipped or ran his way around that corner without "breathing hard." 

If you know that, you know something I don't.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on September 24, 2012, 08:30:17 AM

AnnoyedBeyond.  Every time No Matter posts anything you are right behind him with a comment, and it is never a favorable comment.  It has gotten to the point where if I see a NoMatter post, I can take it to the bank that you will be right there.   Even something as mundane as posting an observation about a parent bragging on his child...

Every time, really? Considering NMNM posts about 20 times a day and I've posted about 8 times in the past week, don't you think that's a little inaccurate?

I thought this was a discussion forum. I thought that what NMNM posted was wrong--considering that Tracy Martin was in fact in a much better position to know whether Trayvon was athletic or in good shape or whatever than NMNM is.

How do you know Tracy was just pointlessly bragging about his child vs being honest, that Trayvon was a pretty decent athlete, which was my point.

I'm sorry it offends you so. I'll try to do better. I guess if I cut my posting down from an average of once a day to once a week you should be able to find less to complain about.

Maybe.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 24, 2012, 08:34:44 AM
If you know that, you know something I don't.

Try the autopsy report.  It doesn't indicate any issues.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on September 24, 2012, 09:00:41 AM
I don't either. I think she used 'back' to mean 'back home'.

I don't think it is remotely plausible that Dee Dee meant to say that she understood Martin to have turned away from going homeward to go in some other direction, and she did not object or ask for an explanation. That's not consistent with her self-characterization prior to that point.

Why would she mean "started walking back [home] again" when she stated TM was already by his fathers house?  Dee Dee tells TM to run to his dads house and TM responds saying he's going to run to the back of the house because its easier.  TM then runs, loses GZ, stops running, is out of breath and started walking with no account of time lapse in between.  She doesn't say he hides or stops anywhere a few seconds after running.  IF TM runs for only a couple of seconds around the corner, then just starts walking back home, why wouldn't GZ have seen him?  Yes, it was dark and rainy, but I'd think he could see a shadowy figure walking down the path if it was only 30-40 yards away.

If I were just basing it on Dee Dee's account, Dee Dee tells him to run to his dads and TM says he's about to run to the back of his fathers house and he's presumably somewhere between GZ's car on TTL and the T when he says this.  After running a short period of time, he stops, is out of breath and says he doesn't need to run anymore because he's right by his fathers house.  If we are to believe Dee Dee's account to this point, I think it makes much more sense that when TM "started walking back again", it was to head back the direction where he just ran from.  Dee Dee yells at him to run home and not walk back again and I don't see her needing to yell at him to run, when he says he had lost GZ.  It makes more sense to me that she's yelling at him for heading a direction other than home.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 24, 2012, 09:24:49 AM
TM responds saying he's going to run to the back of the house because its easier.

That's not what Dee Dee said.

Quote
IF TM runs for only a couple of seconds around the corner, then just starts walking back home, why wouldn't GZ have seen him?

I don't assume that Dee Dee's account is true. Why is that hard to understand? Would it help if I said it in bold, or italics, or all caps?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 24, 2012, 09:38:03 AM
Every time, really? Considering NMNM posts about 20 times a day and I've posted about 8 times in the past week, don't you think that's a little inaccurate?

I thought this was a discussion forum. I thought that what NMNM posted was wrong--considering that Tracy Martin was in fact in a much better position to know whether Trayvon was athletic or in good shape or whatever than NMNM is.

How do you know Tracy was just pointlessly bragging about his child vs being honest, that Trayvon was a pretty decent athlete, which was my point.

I'm sorry it offends you so. I'll try to do better. I guess if I cut my posting down from an average of once a day to once a week you should be able to find less to complain about.

Maybe.

If it is an observation and not a statement of fact from NM, how can it be wrong?  People have different perspectives, IMO.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on September 24, 2012, 10:11:10 AM
If it is an observation and not a statement of fact from NM, how can it be wrong?  People have different perspectives, IMO.

Even me, Deb? In your world am I allowed to have a different perspective? And if my perspective is that someone's perspective is inaccurate or even plain wrong, do I get to post that perspective the same way the original person posted theirs? Or is that too much to ask in your world?

Seriously. I've seen you argue with other posters. I've even seen you argue fairly forcefully with NMNM. Why is that okay--but me stating my own opinion is wrong?

The fact of the matter is that Tracy Martin was in a much better position to know whether or not Trayvon was athletic, in good shape, great shape, poor shape or had a strawberry birthmark on his butt than NMNM is. So it makes more sense to give more weight to his opinion--at least to me.

I dunno. I have yet to see where Tracy Martin came out and said "yeah, you know, Trayvon was in horrible shape so it makes perfect sense that he'd have been gasping for air and all tired out from running a little ways". I have however seen where he said that Trayvon was a good athlete et cetera.

Tracy knew Trayvon. Unless NM2 isn't disclosing everything to us...he didn't.

Tracy's opinions should thus have more validity than NM2's when pertaining to things like what kind of shape Trayvon was in.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on September 24, 2012, 12:00:23 PM
That's not what Dee Dee said.

Dee Dee: So he put his hoodie on. So I said, ‘What’s going on?’ He said this man is still
watching him. Like in a car…so he about to run from the back. So then I told him, go to his dad
house. Run to his Dad house.
BDLR: Go to what?
Dee Dee: Run to his dad house.
BDLR: To his dad’s house?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: So he say he about to run for the back cause its mo’ easier, he said. So, next thing I
hear, he gettin’ run. And I can hear that the wind blowin’…


I don't assume that Dee Dee's account is true. Why is that hard to understand? Would it help if I said it in bold, or italics, or all caps?

What does my statement have to do with specifically with Dee Dee's account?  I'm objecting to your interpretation of events on the statement that TM ran a few yards around the corner and hid, something Dee Dee doesn't mention.  I see no evidence to support it.  Is there some logical reason to believe TM ducked around the corner and hid somewhere around John's house before he decided to come out and walk towards home?  Why would an athletic teenager who rested at the mailboxes for 18 minutes or so (granted this is according to Dee Dee whom you don't believe) be so tired that he'd only be able to run for a few seconds before being out of breath?   
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on September 24, 2012, 12:25:59 PM
 "Is there some logical reason to believe TM ducked around the corner and hid somewhere around John's house before he decided to come out and walk towards home? "

The logic would be that TM would lose Z by hiding. Z wasn't that far behind him.
That was Serino's opinion. The question is why would TM let GZ pass by once on the way to
look for an address but emerge as GZ is walking back to his truck/SUV/car?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: annoyedbeyond on September 24, 2012, 01:47:54 PM
"Is there some logical reason to believe TM ducked around the corner and hid somewhere around John's house before he decided to come out and walk towards home? "

The logic would be that TM would lose Z by hiding. Z wasn't that far behind him.
That was Serino's opinion. The question is why would TM let GZ pass by once on the way to
look for an address but emerge as GZ is walking back to his truck/SUV/car?

Because (perhaps either) a. he misjudged where GZ was or b. he'd scoped out GZ and decided he could take him or put some fear in him?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on September 24, 2012, 02:10:26 PM
"Is there some logical reason to believe TM ducked around the corner and hid somewhere around John's house before he decided to come out and walk towards home? "

The logic would be that TM would lose Z by hiding. Z wasn't that far behind him.
That was Serino's opinion. The question is why would TM let GZ pass by once on the way to
look for an address but emerge as GZ is walking back to his truck/SUV/car?

Where do you get Serino's opinion from?  I don't see it in his FBI interview.  Was this opinion offered prior to Dee Dee's statement(s)?  Since this is the Dee Dee thread, how does TM running a few yards from the T before going into hiding foot with Dee Dee's account?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on September 24, 2012, 02:29:10 PM
Is it reasonable that DeeDee was acquainted with what had appeared in the media about the case before she was interviewed?  Is it reasonable that she may have confused what she read or was told by others with what she actually experienced?  It is clear that at least in BDLR's interview, there was no effort made to separate the sources of her information.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 24, 2012, 03:09:02 PM
Is it reasonable that DeeDee was acquainted with what had appeared in the media about the case before she was interviewed?  Is it reasonable that she may have confused what she read or was told by others with what she actually experienced?  It is clear that at least in BDLR's interview, there was no effort made to separate the sources of her information.

Could Crump have submitted a list of questions to the SAO in which Dee Dee was willing to respond or just as a guideline?  Her "You want that too?" makes me wonder about the extent of her coaching. 

Could he even do that?  Would the SAO agree to it if they were questions they needed answers for?  While Crump isn't a part of the Prosecution team, he seems to have been privy to the extent of their investigation before it was released.  At least, IMO.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 24, 2012, 06:49:20 PM
While Crump isn't a part of the Prosecution team, he seems to have been privy to the extent of their investigation before it was released.

Certainly the SPD shared information with Trayvon's parents that they didn't release to the public. I would think Crump got information from them rather than directly from the LEOs. Or maybe the Martins asked the LEOs to give them information via Crump, once they retained him.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 24, 2012, 07:45:40 PM
Dee said "he walked up to 'em".

Thank you for finally fulfilling my prediction.

When I first realized that Dee Dee said 'You want that too?', I thought there would be people claiming it was something else. It took longer than I expected.

Quote
The transcript posted here is and always has been incorrect.

I knew what Dee Dee said long before I saw a transcript.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 24, 2012, 08:07:16 PM
Please revisit the recorded statement

It happens I did that recently, as part of discussion on the timeline thread (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2195.msg102809.html#msg102809) that DFH started. I made a fresh transcript of that part of the interview, BDL's question and all of Dee Dee's response. I'll repost it here.

I made this transcript myself, straight from the audio, and I stand by it.

14:31-15:42 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu)
Quote
De la Rionda: Did he ever say something else about that, like, whether the guy had gotten out of the car? Did he ever describe, "Yeah, the guy, now, he's out of the car, and he's chasing me"? I know you said the guy, he said, the guy was following, but did he ever say the guy got out of the car?

Dee Dee: You want that too?

De la Rionda: I want to know the truth, whether, did he say that or not. If he didn't say that, that's fine. I mean, I don't, I don't need to know [crosstalk].

Dee Dee: Like, when he like, walking.

De la Rionda: I know Trayvon is, is running, right, or walking?

Dee Dee: Yeah.

De la Rionda: My question is did Trayvon ever describe to you, "hey"? You know how, like, if I see a football game, I say "Yeah, the guy was running fast", or "The guy", you know, "ran to the left." Did he ever [crosstalk]?

Dee Dee: When he was at the, the mail thing.

De la Rionda: Yeah.

Dee Dee: The man was on the phone.

De la Rionda: Right.

Dee Dee: [Unintelligible] was telling me.

De la Rionda: I'm sorry, what, what?

Dee Dee: He's telling me the man was on the phone. He put his hoodie on.

De la Rionda: Right.

Dee Dee: So, the man was still in the car. Then, Trayvon started walking. Then he said, I think the man got off, for some reason. Because he said -

De la Rionda: That's what you believe? 

Dee Dee: Yeah.

De la Rionda: OK.

Dee Dee: Because he said the man was still following him.

De la Rionda: OK, so he didn't say, like, the man got out -

Dee Dee: No.

De la Rionda: You just believe that?

Dee Dee: Yeah.

De la Rionda: But Trayvon didn't tell you the man got out of the car?

Dee Dee: No. Hunh-uh.
 
De la Rionda: OK. Alright.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 24, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in the grass like all the witnesses except W6 said

W-18 is the only witness who claims to have seen the shooting.

Quote
If you knew what DeeDee said long before the erroneous transcripts posted here

I said before I saw a transcript. I don't know when the transcripts you refer to first appeared.

Quote
I urge TL's readers to listen to the actual recording

I concur.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on September 24, 2012, 08:43:54 PM
Woops!  Meant to say Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in the grass like all the witnesses except W6 said and like Zimmerman showed in the reenactment the next day.

If you knew what DeeDee said long before the erroneous transcripts posted here, please do tell how you knew?  (I'm not psychic, but I can hear.)  Again, I urge TL's readers to listen to the actual recording and not rely on the faulty transcripts found on this site or elsewhere on the Internet.  The recording is here:  http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-8-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/ -- relevant portion of BDLR's DeeDee interview to settle this starts at 14:32.

What is she saying at 14:56-14:57 on the AxiomAmnesia link?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 24, 2012, 08:47:55 PM
Woops!  Meant to say Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in the grass like all the witnesses except W6 said and like Zimmerman showed in the reenactment the next day.

Besides not making sense, this isn't on topic for the W-8 thread. I suggest finding a different thread if you want to go on with it.

Quote
The recording is here:  http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-8-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/ -- relevant portion of BDLR's DeeDee interview to settle this starts at 14:32.

I listened to that part of the recording at Axiom Amnesia, and it sounds the same there as anywhere.

Dee Dee drew out the word 'too' into two syllables, but that makes only three syllables, not the five that you claim.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 25, 2012, 01:13:20 AM
Dee Dee drew out the word 'too' into two syllables, but that makes only three syllables, not the five that you claim.

Wait, that is five syllables. Sorry. I must have suffered a brain freeze there.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on September 25, 2012, 03:27:26 AM
With a little imagination you can interpret some of what Dee Dee says in different ways. BDLR obviously heard "You want that too?" Just like pretty much everyone else that's listened to that interview. BDLR did an outstandingly crappy job with that interview. Leading questions, giving Dee Dee the answers/suggestions, etc. Granted, Dee Dee was a difficult interviewee, but still. IANAL or judge, but if it was my decision I wouldn't allow that interview into evidence just because of how badly it was done.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on September 25, 2012, 07:00:27 AM
Where do you get Serino's opinion from?  I don't see it in his FBI interview.  Was this opinion offered prior to Dee Dee's statement(s)?  Since this is the Dee Dee thread, how does TM running a few yards from the T before going into hiding foot with Dee Dee's account?

Yes it was before Dee Dee came into the picture. How does it pertain to Dee Dee?
How true are her statements? How influenced by media was she or how much did she want to protect TM's rep?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on September 25, 2012, 07:27:10 AM
Yes it was before Dee Dee came into the picture. How does it pertain to Dee Dee?
How true are her statements? How influenced by media was she or how much did she want to protect TM's rep?

Where do you get Serino's opinion from?  Based on what evidence did he provide that opinion? 

Dee Dee describes in some detail (not as much as I'd like) TM's actions from the time he runs until the time TM verbally confronts GZ.  Since this is a Dee Dee thread, I am asking how her account foots with the thought that Martin only ran a few yards down the T and hid out. 

I have no idea how true her statements are, but I am trying to understand what she says TM said and did as he ran can fit into a scenario of him ducking around the corner and hiding out.  If the answer is simply that you don't believe what Dee Dee says happened, then thats fine, but what do you decide to believe and what do you decide to toss out and how does that affect the prosecutions case?  I mean she is quite adamant that he is so out of breath that his voice changes and he's out of breath for quite a while.  I don't see how an athletic 17 year old could be so out of breath after running only a few yards. 

AGain, I don't discount the possibility that TM only went a few yards and hid, but I think you have to discount almost all of Dee Dee's statement and assume TM was doing so not in fear or because he was too tired to run, but to lay in wait for GZ.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on September 25, 2012, 08:09:26 AM
With a little imagination you can interpret some of what Dee Dee says in different ways. BDLR obviously heard "You want that too?" Just like pretty much everyone else that's listened to that interview. BDLR did an outstandingly crappy job with that interview. Leading questions, giving Dee Dee the answers/suggestions, etc. Granted, Dee Dee was a difficult interviewee, but still. IANAL or judge, but if it was my decision I wouldn't allow that interview into evidence just because of how badly it was done.

From the Affidavit of Probable Cause on, all of Bernie's work on this case has been abominable.  But maybe he was dealt such a bad hand by being assigned to prosecute it, that we should be a bit more charitable.  I would have refused to take the job.  :D
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on September 25, 2012, 08:17:01 AM
I think you can go back to Dee Dee's interview which formed most of the basis of the APC.  That interview was nothing short of incompetent and nothing like his other interviews.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 25, 2012, 09:39:41 AM
I think you can go back to Dee Dee's interview which formed most of the basis of the APC.  That interview was nothing short of incompetent and nothing like his other interviews.

I haven't got time right now to reread that interview but I don't remember Dee Dee ever stating that Martin told her directly that he was scared.  I thought those were her interpretations of their conversation.

I do agree that she is a huge part of the written probable cause but there is also the bulk of the first Doc Dump that they are including in one paragraph. 

I take it that her (written) part of it is because they think that she is their strongest point in conveying that Martin was in fear and just trying to run home with his purchases when Zimmerman confronted him. 

IMO, if he was trying to get away, and he had minutes to do so, he was not afraid of Zimmerman at any stage.  He even did the posturing by the truck.  Zimmerman took it to be something like an intimidation manuever with the hand in the waistband.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 25, 2012, 10:37:11 AM
if it was my decision I wouldn't allow that interview into evidence just because of how badly it was done.

I don't think entire witness interviews are usually admitted, because they are hearsay. Parts of it may be admitted as impeachment or corroboration. If the opposing counsel wants to argue that the admitted statements came out as they did because of poor interviewing, they can move to admit more of the interview to support that, and argue the point to the jury.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 25, 2012, 12:30:23 PM
I don't think entire witness interviews are usually admitted, because they are hearsay. Parts of it may be admitted as impeachment or corroboration. If the opposing counsel wants to argue that the admitted statements came out as they did because of poor interviewing, they can move to admit more of the interview to support that, and argue the point to the jury.

Doesn't "excited utterances" come into play with this?  I remember Bernie de la Rionda asking if Martin was "excited" in the interview with Dee Dee.  I always thought that was his way of making sure that he could avoid heresay to admit a majority of her statement.

Too lazy to go retype and amongst the other things I can't do anymore...is a screen grab from the PDF.  I seriously need to get a new computer.
 :o
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on September 25, 2012, 12:46:03 PM
I haven't got time right now to reread that interview but I don't remember Dee Dee ever stating that Martin told her directly that he was scared.  I thought those were her interpretations of their conversation.

I do agree that she is a huge part of the written probable cause but there is also the bulk of the first Doc Dump that they are including in one paragraph. 

I take it that her (written) part of it is because they think that she is their strongest point in conveying that Martin was in fear and just trying to run home with his purchases when Zimmerman confronted him. 

IMO, if he was trying to get away, and he had minutes to do so, he was not afraid of Zimmerman at any stage.  He even did the posturing by the truck.  Zimmerman took it to be something like an intimidation manuever with the hand in the waistband.

You are correct, she didn't say TM said he was scared.  She said she thought he was scared based on the change in his voice.  She made no mention of TM being scared prior or any indication that fear was the reason TM decided to run.  I also don't think her statement about TM being scared would be allowed at trial.  I think what the APC tries to conclude from her statement is that TM was followed, chased, confronted and illegally provoked or attacked by GZ prior to TM retaliating.  Dee Dee doesn't give them chased or confronted.  She does give them followed and gives indications that she believes TM was attacked first.  Whether those indications are admissible is questionable.  She'll be able to testify to hearing a bump sound, but doubt she'd be able to offer that TM was the bumpee.  Seems to me that they have a witness to TM being watched/followed, something that has never been in dispute.  I'm not sure she gives them much else.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on September 25, 2012, 01:33:07 PM
Doesn't "excited utterances" come into play with this?  I remember Bernie de la Rionda asking if Martin was "excited" in the interview with Dee Dee.  I always thought that was his way of making sure that he could avoid heresay to admit a majority of her statement.

The "excited utterance" exception, if it applied, would determine whether DeeDee could testify about what Martin told her. It would have no effect on whether DeeDee's recorded interview would be admissible.

As nomatter_neveremind mentioned, the interview is not admissible except for a few limited purposes. It could be used by the defense to impeach DeeDee's court testimony by showing it had changed, and it could be used by the state to bolster her testimony by showing it hadn't changed, but only to counter a defense suggestion that it had changed.

Martin's comments to DeeDee would fall under the "spontaneous statement" hearsay exception instead of the "excited utterance" exception. A spontaneous statement is one made while the events are occurring, while an excited utterance is one made after the events have occurred, but while the person is still in an an excited state due to the unusual events. At one time, Florida courts also required spontaneous statements to be made while in an excited state, but fairly recently the state supreme court eliminated that requirement.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 25, 2012, 05:22:02 PM
You are correct, she didn't say TM said he was scared.  She said she thought he was scared based on the change in his voice.  She made no mention of TM being scared prior or any indication that fear was the reason TM decided to run.  I also don't think her statement about TM being scared would be allowed at trial.  I think what the APC tries to conclude from her statement is that TM was followed, chased, confronted and illegally provoked or attacked by GZ prior to TM retaliating.  Dee Dee doesn't give them chased or confronted.  She does give them followed and gives indications that she believes TM was attacked first.  Whether those indications are admissible is questionable.  She'll be able to testify to hearing a bump sound, but doubt she'd be able to offer that TM was the bumpee.  Seems to me that they have a witness to TM being watched/followed, something that has never been in dispute.  I'm not sure she gives them much else.

I am still curious as to how you hear a bump but it could be the sudden exhalation of air.  ((shrugs)) 

The one thing in her interview is that she starts to say "Trayvon bump-someone bumped Trayvon"  That change of statement is noticeable on the audio.  No doubt she will claim some kind of confusion, nerves, or age if it gets in to a courtroom.  I would think that MOM would make that something of an  issue in her deposition. 

Honestly, I don't see how she ever gets called.  The State needed her to make their PC.  They got their charge so, IMO, she is no longer needed.  You cannot convince me that politics have not played a HUGE role in this.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on September 25, 2012, 07:40:19 PM
You are correct, she didn't say TM said he was scared.  She said she thought he was scared based on the change in his voice.  She made no mention of TM being scared prior or any indication that fear was the reason TM decided to run.  I also don't think her statement about TM being scared would be allowed at trial.  I think what the APC tries to conclude from her statement is that TM was followed, chased, confronted and illegally provoked or attacked by GZ prior to TM retaliating.  Dee Dee doesn't give them chased or confronted.  She does give them followed and gives indications that she believes TM was attacked first.  Whether those indications are admissible is questionable.  She'll be able to testify to hearing a bump sound, but doubt she'd be able to offer that TM was the bumpee.  Seems to me that they have a witness to TM being watched/followed, something that has never been in dispute.  I'm not sure she gives them much else.

What would be the difference between Zimmerman legally provoking Martin and illegally provoking him, and does it make a difference in how legally Martin could respond?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 25, 2012, 08:10:36 PM
The one thing in her interview is that she starts to say "Trayvon bump-someone bumped Trayvon"  That change of statement is noticeable on the audio.  No doubt she will claim some kind of confusion, nerves, or age if it gets in to a courtroom.

Transposition of words is a common error, in speaking and writing.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on September 25, 2012, 10:03:45 PM
Comments by CommonSenseforChange deleted for misrepresenting his/her opinion as fact.

This poster has had many comments deleted on TalkLeft's main site. If he/she continues to post unsupported speculation here, he/she will be banned. You can find his/her biased, anti-Zimmerman posts on many sites on the Internet. This is not going to be another forum for his/her views.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on September 25, 2012, 10:18:05 PM
What would be the difference between Zimmerman legally provoking Martin and illegally provoking him, and does it make a difference in how legally Martin could respond?

Presumably, legally provoking Martin would be doing something -- such as keeping an eye on him or following him -- that might annoy Martin, but is perfectly legal to do; illegally provoking Martin would be doing something illegal, like shoving Martin or attempting to detain him. If so, then naturally it would make a difference in how Martin could legally respond.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 25, 2012, 11:41:47 PM

Dee Dee: So he say he about to run for the back cause its mo’ easier, he said.

You almost slipped this one past me.

Dee Dee never said 'for the back'. It was always 'from the back'.

Dee Dee didn't drop the 'r' from 'more' in that sentence.

The transcriber missed a couple of words. It's 'he about to run from his, from the back . . .'
Title: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: Redbrow on October 29, 2012, 12:18:56 AM
We really need a clear version of Crump's interview of DeeDee. During this Sharpton interview, Crump states Trayvon entered the front gate using a code according to DeeDee.

Quote
CRUMP: The whole time when he went to store, when he came back from
store. All day, they talk. When you look at the cell phone records that
blows Zimmerman`s testimony out of the water. Because she says and it`s so
logical when she tells the story. He was walking home from that 7-eleven,
and it started raining. He ran into the complex, had to hit the code, got
into the gate, went to the first building he saw to get out of the rain.
Stood there, let the rain subside, then he starts that walking back. She
calls him back because he got off when it was raining.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46823223/ns/msnbc-politicsnation/t/politicsnation-wednesday-march/#.UI4cfbTDJAK

Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 29, 2012, 12:50:19 AM
During this Sharpton interview, Crump states Trayvon entered the front gate using a code according to DeeDee.

That interview was in March. It's a marvel that no one seems to have noticed this point until now.
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: FromBelow on October 29, 2012, 02:16:22 AM
That interview was in March. It's a marvel that no one seems to have noticed this point until now.

Why do you think people have been keeping after MOM to get an audible version? There's a reasonable theory that the version put in discovery was deliberately inaudible. An audible version would likely reveal a number of lies by either Crump and/or DD. It's also part of the reason why MOM wants the chain of custody. If it was made inaudible intentionally then he wants to know who did it. MOM will get an audible version eventually. If not from Crump then from ABC. An audio expert might be able to compare the two and determine if there was deliberate tampering. That combined with chain of custody is where the fun really starts.

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/examining-w8-crump-interview/
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: hexx on October 29, 2012, 03:19:05 AM
Why do you think people have been keeping after MOM to get an audible version? There's a reasonable theory that the version put in discovery was deliberately inaudible. An audible version would likely reveal a number of lies by either Crump and/or DD. It's also part of the reason why MOM wants the chain of custody. If it was made inaudible intentionally then he wants to know who did it. MOM will get an audible version eventually. If not from Crump then from ABC. An audio expert might be able to compare the two and determine if there was deliberate tampering. That combined with chain of custody is where the fun really starts.

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/examining-w8-crump-interview/

maybe I'm stupid, but it seems to me that there is a difference between old fashioned analog tapes and digital recordings when it comes to the "chain of custody" issues. You can hand over a tape as a material object, but a digital recording is not a material object it's just a string of 1's and 0's. Only a copy is transferred, and there is no reason to delete anything.


There is an innocent explanation why the Crump recording sounds like crap.

The interview was conducted in two rooms. There is Guttman with DeDe in one room, and I bet my ass, he was recording the proceedings there - he had Dee Dees voice in CD quality. Then there's Crump somewhere else, he is conducting interview via phone.

What Crump & co are listening in the other place is Dee Dee's voice transferred as a phone signal that is compressed, Lo Fi audio. I guess Crump could have recorded the interview using the phone's inbuilt recorder which would keep the quality as phone quality - but if there was speaker system on, for the other people to hear the conversation, and Crump used his hand held recorder to record what sound comes out of the speaker system, there is more audio degradation because of that.

Gutman has Dee Dee's voice as CD quality recording.

Crump had: Dee Dee's voice - Dee Dee's phone mic, analog to digital conversion, phone audio data compression, digital to analog conversion at the Crump's headquarters, audio coming from the speaker system, recorded with hand held device, another analog to digital conversion, and and then we have the crap recording.

So, it's not necessarily so that Guttman handed over his CD quality recording to Crump who messed it up, but there are two recordings.



Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on October 29, 2012, 03:57:27 AM
Crump played a very clear recording off of his recorder at a press conference.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: hexx on October 29, 2012, 04:34:16 AM
Crump played a very clear recording off of his recorder at a press conference.


he did? OK.

I tried to figure out a signal chain that would produce very bad recording without intentional tampering.


One thing is certain, you cannot "enhance" a crappy recording to a pristine sound, information loss/degradation is a one way street. In movies or TV shows, a computer whizz pushes "enhance" button and a fuzzy blob turns in to a detailed photo - that's just impossible, even for FBI. Similarly with audio. You can't regain the lost information and detail.


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on October 29, 2012, 07:49:28 AM
You almost slipped this one past me.

Dee Dee never said 'for the back'. It was always 'from the back'.

Dee Dee didn't drop the 'r' from 'more' in that sentence.

The transcriber missed a couple of words. It's 'he about to run from his, from the back . . .'

I wasn't trying to slip anything past you.  I was using the transcribed words as listed on this site.  The transcription has since been changed with the word "from" in place of "for".   

You hear "more", I and others, hear "mo".  They mean the same thing, so its irrelevant.
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: leftwig on October 29, 2012, 09:08:39 AM
That interview was in March. It's a marvel that no one seems to have noticed this point until now.

Did anyone check security system for finger prints or times when codes were entered?  Doesn't appear to be any part of discovery, so without any collected information corroborating the statement, the comment is of little use to lawyers.  Dee Dee's account has TM under the mail thingy at 6:54.  GZ says he spots TM by Taffe's house moments before he calls NEN at 7:09.  Whether TM walked through the front gate or somewhere else to get to the mail thingy by 6:54 doesn't seem to matter to Dee Dee's testimony.  How TM got from the mail thingy to Taffe's house would be an important piece of information, but Dee Dee doesn't have any account of TM being anywhere but under the mail thingy from the time he enters the complex until he notices being watched by GZ. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 29, 2012, 09:27:07 AM
You hear "more", I and others, hear "mo".  They mean the same thing, so its irrelevant.

That's why I think it is a time wasting distraction for a transcriber to note every dropped consonant, every time the first syllable of 'because' is dropped, every time 'th' in 'something' isn't perfectly enunciated, etc. At least they could refrain from indicating a consonant is dropped when it really isn't.
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 29, 2012, 09:42:22 AM
There is Guttman with DeDe in one room,

First time I've seen this claim. Do you have evidence, or is this just speculation?
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 29, 2012, 10:07:44 AM
An audio expert might be able to compare the two and determine if there was deliberate tampering.
http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/examining-w8-crump-interview/
So, it's not necessarily so that Guttman handed over his CD quality recording to Crump who messed it up, but there are two recordings.

Straw man.

Did you read the article linked in the comment you were responding to?
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: RickyJim on October 29, 2012, 10:45:41 AM
Did anyone check security system for finger prints or times when codes were entered?  Doesn't appear to be any part of discovery, so without any collected information corroborating the statement, the comment is of little use to lawyers.  Dee Dee's account has TM under the mail thingy at 6:54.  GZ says he spots TM by Taffe's house moments before he calls NEN at 7:09.  Whether TM walked through the front gate or somewhere else to get to the mail thingy by 6:54 doesn't seem to matter to Dee Dee's testimony.  How TM got from the mail thingy to Taffe's house would be an important piece of information, but Dee Dee doesn't have any account of TM being anywhere but under the mail thingy from the time he enters the complex until he notices being watched by GZ.

On a related issue, does anyone know yet whether the townhouses at Retreat View are opened with an ordinary key or by pressing buttons?  Since Trayvon didn't have a key on him, one wonders.  Were the previously robberies at that development, the result of the failures of residents to close their houses properly or were there actual forcible entries?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Cylinder on October 29, 2012, 10:55:34 AM
On a related issue, does anyone know yet whether the townhouses at Retreat View are opened with an ordinary key or by pressing buttons?

I'm having trouble finding the link since it's been months, but one of the realtors/brokers state all units have keyless entry.
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on October 29, 2012, 11:03:33 AM
Did anyone check security system for finger prints or times when codes were entered?  Doesn't appear to be any part of discovery, so without any collected information corroborating the statement, the comment is of little use to lawyers.
Has it been established that there even is a security gate with a code like this? Or if there was one at one point, if it was actually still in use on the night in question?

I don't think I've ever heard any mention of such a system by either side, but I may have missed a passing mention.

And I may not be following the case closely enough, but I had thought there was sort of a consensus that instead of returning through the gate, Trayvon had used a "shortcut" that people regularly used that took them through a couple of back yards to get to the streets. IIRC, there were even photos of the unofficial "entrance" posted to TL, and someone commented you'd only use that if you didn't care about your shoes.

(I don't remember who was advancing the theory that Trayvon used the shortcut or any solid evidence that established this happened, but it does serve the defense narrative that Trayvon wasn't "up to no good" if George saw him in someone's yard rather than on the sidewalk/street.)

As for the importance of this statement by Crump to lawyers, IMO it's very important. He's allegedly telling Al Sharpton (and any viewers) what DeeDee told him that Trayvon told her. It's a very precise detail that can't be mistaken for something else (like assuming Trayvon went to the mailbox area if all he actually conveyed to DeeDee was "this shed thing").

If there was never a coded entrance gate at RTL-- or if there was one but it was inoperable by 2/26-- and yet DeeDee actually said in her interview that Trayvon told her he entered the code and got in, it's proof (IMO) her testimony was a fabrication based on what Team Crump thought they knew at the time.

If a clear copy of the tape turns out to not contain any statement by DeeDee about a coded gate, it's proof (IMO) Ben Crump was trying to sell a false narrative to the public and force the SAO to railroad George.

Either way, I think it's something that attacks a basic tentpole of the prosecution's grounds and establishes an intent to fabricate evidence, and is important both as evidence to get immunity and/or to present to a jury as "reasonable doubt" at a trial.

(All of this is IMO, of course, and again, IANAL.)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on October 29, 2012, 12:09:25 PM
I'm having trouble finding the link since it's been months, but one of the realtors/brokers state all units have keyless entry.

All of the daylight photos of the homes all look to have deadbolts. I don't see any keypads by the front doors, back doors or by the garage doors.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on October 29, 2012, 02:35:59 PM
All of the daylight photos of the homes all look to have deadbolts. I don't see any keypads by the front doors, back doors or by the garage doors.

Unfortunately, nobody has asked Chad if he left a door open for Trayvon.  I think some people have toyed with the scenario that Chad, with his headphones on, didn't hear Trayvon's knocking or bell ringing so T decided to walk around a bit more. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on October 29, 2012, 02:46:44 PM
Unfortunately, nobody has asked Chad if he left a door open for Trayvon.  I think some people have toyed with the scenario that Chad, with his headphones on, didn't hear Trayvon's knocking or bell ringing so T decided to walk around a bit more.
Chad allegedly called Trayvon to see why he was so slow in returning with the snacks. IIRC, this was said to be the 1m call from another number that interrupted one of Trayvon's calls with DeeDee.

Why would Chad then go upstairs and put on headphones and leave Trayvon with no way to get back in, since he not only anticipated his return but went so far as to give him a "hurry up" call?

Chad needs to be asked this question on the witness stand by MOM.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 29, 2012, 02:57:06 PM
Chad allegedly called Trayvon to see why he was so slow in returning with the snacks.

Chad's SAO interview summary (p. 39 of the July 12 release (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)) doesn't say why Chad called Martin.
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: FromBelow on October 29, 2012, 03:11:11 PM
Has it been established that there even is a security gate with a code like this? Or if there was one at one point, if it was actually still in use on the night in question?

I've lived in several gated communities and there was always a keypad for people in cars to open the gate and/or call a resident to open it remotely. I've also always been given access cards. It's not reasonable to expect people to get out of their cars and manually open and close a gate. For people walking it's always been that they need to use an access card to open the smaller pedestrian gate. That said, the gates were I've lived malfunctioned frequently and so they were often left open until repairs could be made.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: jeanmarc8 on October 29, 2012, 04:55:25 PM

I believe this is the link from the St Pete/Tampa Times which talks about keypads on the doors and this being a gated community.  There may be others.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article1221799.ece
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on October 29, 2012, 05:05:58 PM
I believe this is the link from the St Pete/Tampa Times which talks about keypads on the doors and this being a gated community.  There may be others.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article1221799.ece

Don't waste your time with this link. It mentions a keypad code as a rhetorical flourish  without specifying the utility of the code ( Car? Personal?) . It is a classic  example of the biased opinions that masqueraded as news reporting early in the case.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 29, 2012, 10:24:10 PM
Pedestrian gate, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/8137418130/in/photostream/lightbox/) Google Earth street view.

I don't see a keypad, but it might not be visible from this angle.

The clubhouse and the mail shade can be seen in the background.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 29, 2012, 11:32:51 PM

The May 17 release (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf) has three issues of 'Retreat Reflections: The Retreat at Twin Lakes HOA Newsletter' (pp. 150-167). It seems that it is published three times a year. Included are February 2012 (pp. 150-155), September 2011 (pp. 156-161), and June 2011 (pp. 162-167). They are in reverse of chronological order.

From the February 2012 issue (p. 150):
Quote
Now that Lennar has completed all construction, the gates will be closed at all times. See contact information for Laura Mills below if you still need a gate code or remote.

I'm guessing the remotes are for the vehicle gates, and the codes are for the pedestrian gates.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on October 30, 2012, 12:15:59 AM
The May 17 release (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf) has three issues of 'Retreat Reflections: The Retreat at Twin Lakes HOA Newsletter' (pp. 150-167). It seems that it is published three times a year. Included are February 2012 (pp. 150-155), September 2011 (pp. 156-161), and June 2011 (pp. 162-167). They are in reverse of chronological order.

From the February 2012 issue (p. 150):
I'm guessing the remotes are for the vehicle gates, and the codes are for the pedestrian gates.

I wonder if users have unique codes and if the gate system keeps track of users and for how long. I also wonder if the remote codes are unique identifiers. It would tell exactly when Green and Martin arrived home. I wonder what method was used by Trayvon's cousin to get his car in.

I am surprised investigators did not look into this right away, especially since Crump is claiming the info came from interviewing DeeDee. It would show the exact time Trayvon entered if true or discredit DeeDee if not true.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on October 30, 2012, 12:24:12 AM
Does anyone happen to know when Zimmerman’s account mentioning where he first saw Trayvon was released? The earliest media mention of the shortcut I found is this Forbes article from March 22. The Sharpton/Crump interview was on March 21.

Quote
“Zimmerman, from his townhouse in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, noticed a 17 year old wearing a hoodie as he took a shortcut from a convenience store to his home, where he lived with his father.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/crime/2012/03/22/walking-while-black-a-license-to-kill-young-men-like-trayvon-martin/

BTW, add Forbes to the ‘to be sued’ list.

Quote
Minutes before Zimmerman opened fire on Trayvon, he told a dispatcher, ”There’s a real suspicious guy. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. He looks black.”

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 30, 2012, 01:31:43 AM
Does anyone happen to know when Zimmerman’s account mentioning where he first saw Trayvon was released?

Jeralyn (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/21/11315/4799) announced the release of Zimmerman's statements on June 21.

In those statements Zimmerman said he first saw Martin in front of 1460 Retreat View Circle. He did not say he saw Martin enter the complex, nor did he ever mention the famous shortcut.

In his March 13 report, Serino wrote:
Quote
Zimmerman reported a suspicious person, Trayvon Martin, whom he observed entering the gated community of The Reserve[sic] at Twin Lakes on foot, walking between residences from the northwest.

See p.9 of these documents, (http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Pages-from-Police-Reports-without-statements-redacted.pdf) or p. 42 of the May 17 release. (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf)

It's interesting that this sentence is not redacted from the May 17 release.

A leak from Serino's report may be the basis for early press reports of Martin entering by the shortcut.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 30, 2012, 09:11:56 PM
I wonder if users have unique codes

That wouldn't make much sense. The idea is to keep unauthorized people out, not to monitor the residents. Multiple codes at one time would make it easier for someone to get in by punching a random number. The code should be changed frequently, which would be more complicated and time consuming if every resident has a unique code.

ETA: Another commenter mentioned fingerprints. A fingerprint could have been left at any time, so it wouldn't confirm Martin's time of entry either.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on October 31, 2012, 09:23:55 AM
That wouldn't make much sense. The idea is to keep unauthorized people out, not to monitor the residents. Multiple codes at one time would make it easier for someone to get in by punching a random number. The code should be changed frequently, which would be more complicated and time consuming if every resident has a unique code.

ETA: Another commenter mentioned fingerprints. A fingerprint could have been left at any time, so it wouldn't confirm Martin's time of entry either.

As I recall pedestrians had unfettered access to the complex through a number of official and unofficial enteace points. Indeed, one of the witnesses interviewed by the FBI mentioned groups of rowdy non residents entering the complex at will.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 31, 2012, 09:53:37 AM
As I recall pedestrians had unfettered access to the complex

After all our discussion of Martin possibly entering through a shortcut, I don't think this point needs belaboring.

The HOA newsletter indicated that the HOA shut the gates and issued codes.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on October 31, 2012, 10:37:10 AM
Well, then.  End of subject.

Or not.   ;)

It was reported by Tracy Martin or Brandi Green in their interviews, IIRC, that Trayvon Martin had been there 6-8 times.  There is no reason to think he didn't know about that shortcut.  If nothing else, he may have gone out of the gates while walking to the 7-Eleven and he noted it for his return trip.  If the weather was inclement, a short cut would be in order. 

I question whether he sought shelter on one of the back patios rather than the mail kiosk.

My FL complex had those pedestrian gates.  We all had one code.  Same with the car remote.  Same frequency or whatever.  There was a dial box for drivers to call for access.  You entered the address number.  The management programmed your home land line to it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on October 31, 2012, 11:06:13 AM
That wouldn't make much sense. The idea is to keep unauthorized people out, not to monitor the residents. Multiple codes at one time would make it easier for someone to get in by punching a random number. The code should be changed frequently, which would be more complicated and time consuming if every resident has a unique code.

ETA: Another commenter mentioned fingerprints. A fingerprint could have been left at any time, so it wouldn't confirm Martin's time of entry either.

I was the one who mentioned the prints and I agree.  After I typed it, I thought that there wouldn't be any way to confirm when the fingerprints got there and a lack of TM's fingerprints wouldn't prove he didn't use the key pad. 

However, if a log was kept when codes were entered, that would have significance to corroborating Dee Dee's statements.  Its unlikely that there was much walk in activity on this rainy night and identifying the times they key pad had used that night could reveal whether its possible TM used it.  IF Dee Dee says he used the key pad and no one used it from 6:45-7:10, then it would impeach her testimony.   Not sure it would have much significance other than for that purpose, but impeaching Dee Dee would be pretty important for the defense.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 31, 2012, 12:17:12 PM
There is no reason to think he didn't know about that shortcut.

So far there's no evidence either way. 

Brandy Green said Trayvon 'don't know anybody here' (Video, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w47eL_jTieI&feature=related) 1:12).

The summary of Green's 3/27 SAO interview (p. 32 of the July 12 release (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)) says: 'She believes this was the first time Trayvon has ever walked to the 7-11 store.'

We don't know that going between 1460 and 1510 would be a shortcut for Martin. If he was coming by Oregon Ave., the 'shortcut' looks like a slightly longer way on Google Earth. I think the popularity of the 'shortcut' is for people going south from that area on RVC, toward where Zimmerman lived.

Quote
I question whether he sought shelter on one of the back patios rather than the mail kiosk.

It's only Dee Dee's word that he took shelter at all.

ETA: There is a thread (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2132.0.html) on the shortcut.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on October 31, 2012, 01:24:00 PM
The summary of Green's 3/27 SAO interview (p. 32 of the July 12 release (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)) says: 'She believes this was the first time Trayvon has ever walked to the 7-11 store.'

Didn't Chad  say in his police interview that  Trayvon had walked to  the 7/11 on Thursday?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 31, 2012, 01:40:31 PM
Didn't Chad  say in his police interview that  Trayvon had walked to  the 7/11 on Thursday?

Chad's 4/27 SAO interview summary (p. 39):
Quote
[Redacted] advised that the Victim has walked to the store on one prior occasion and that was the Thursday before the incident.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on October 31, 2012, 01:49:13 PM
Would BG be able to make that statement in testimony?   She could make a statement that she doesn't know of any other time TM walked to the 7/11, but I doubt she'd be able to make a statement that she  "believes" this was the first time.

NN, you bring up a good point that we have no evidence that TM was actually using the cut through along Taafe's place to enter into the complex.  Zimmerman just states that he sees TM by Taafe's house, not that he came from outside the complex and used the cut through to get there.  In the interview with BDLR, Dee Dee doesn't mention the route into the complex, just that he ran in and under a mail thingy as it was about to rain or as it started raining (why didn't BDLR ask?).  I think the mention of going through the front gate was relayed by Crump and I assume was part of that interview which we don't have a good recoding of.

IT will be very interesting if we can hear the March recording with Crump and to have someone actually ask Dee Dee details about the night of the shooting.  Unfortunately, we're now 7 months past the event so we are likely to get a lot of "I don't remember" from Dee Dee during the MOM depo. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 31, 2012, 02:04:57 PM
why didn't BDLR ask?

I think de la Rionda didn't ask many things because the prosecution's evidence will be her courtroom testimony. Her prior interviews will be impeachment material, so the less said in them the better for the prosecution.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on October 31, 2012, 03:26:54 PM
Would BG be able to make that statement in testimony?   She could make a statement that she doesn't know of any other time TM walked to the 7/11, but I doubt she'd be able to make a statement that she  "believes" this was the first time.

NN, you bring up a good point that we have no evidence that TM was actually using the cut through along Taafe's place to enter into the complex.  Zimmerman just states that he sees TM by Taafe's house, not that he came from outside the complex and used the cut through to get there.  In the interview with BDLR, Dee Dee doesn't mention the route into the complex, just that he ran in and under a mail thingy as it was about to rain or as it started raining (why didn't BDLR ask?).  I think the mention of going through the front gate was relayed by Crump and I assume was part of that interview which we don't have a good recoding of.

IT will be very interesting if we can hear the March recording with Crump and to have someone actually ask Dee Dee details about the night of the shooting.  Unfortunately, we're now 7 months past the event so we are likely to get a lot of "I don't remember" from Dee Dee during the MOM depo.

Apparently she failed to mention the 'mail thingy' in her original interview and instead she stated 'under the apartment.' Diwataman included the clips in his latest video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YZRJ-X0pQc&feature=plcp
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on October 31, 2012, 03:38:49 PM
Would BG be able to make that statement in testimony?   She could make a statement that she doesn't know of any other time TM walked to the 7/11, but I doubt she'd be able to make a statement that she  "believes" this was the first time.

NN, you bring up a good point that we have no evidence that TM was actually using the cut through along Taafe's place to enter into the complex.  Zimmerman just states that he sees TM by Taafe's house, not that he came from outside the complex and used the cut through to get there.  In the interview with BDLR, Dee Dee doesn't mention the route into the complex, just that he ran in and under a mail thingy as it was about to rain or as it started raining (why didn't BDLR ask?).  I think the mention of going through the front gate was relayed by Crump and I assume was part of that interview which we don't have a good recoding of.

IT will be very interesting if we can hear the March recording with Crump and to have someone actually ask Dee Dee details about the night of the shooting.  Unfortunately, we're now 7 months past the event so we are likely to get a lot of "I don't remember" from Dee Dee during the MOM depo.

It might just be me but I believe that Zimmerman's statements are evidence.    :)

Why would Trayvon Martin turn to the right and go in the opposite direction from which he was staying?  Maybe he got turned around.  But he has the clubhouse in view for a reference point.  He just walked to 7-Eleven some 45 minutes earlier.  He and his cousin drove over to 7-Eleven Sunday morning for Black and Milds.  They drove over to the movie theater Saturday night.  IIRC and the Google Map, the theater is not that far past where the convenience store is located.  Within a couple of miles of the Green TH and the cousin said it was close by.



If MOM gets the "I don't remember's" from Dee Dee, I think he will get much more aggressive in his questioning. 

That young woman will never see the inside of a court room, IMO.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on October 31, 2012, 07:41:27 PM
Don't prosecutors generally want to know as many facts as possible before getting to the courtroom?  Are you suggesting BDLR already knew the answers to the many questions he should have asked but didn't or he is going against lawyering 101 and going to wing it at trial?

As for the evidence, of course GZ's testimony is evidence.  But, I don't beleive GZ says he saw TM walk from outside the complex and through the cut through to get to Taffe's.  He merely states that he see's TM by Taafe's place.  Now if I had to guess, I'd say its more likely TM entered the complex via the cut through by Taafe's around 7:08 than he used the front gate around 6:54. 

Dee Dee in her testimony has TM entering the complex and taking shelter under the mail thingy around 6:54 and no mention of going anywhere else until TM notices GZ watching him.  GZ says he first sees TM by Taafe's about 14 minutes after Dee Dee has TM taking shelter.   Either Dee Dee is entirely wrong about when TM ran into the complex or where he hung out and for how long, or TM walked from the shelter to Taafe's at some point where GZ first noticed him or GZ is wrong about where and when he first saw TM.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 31, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
That young woman will never see the inside of a court room, IMO.

I think this prosecution is basically about Republican politicians trying to duck accusations of racism. Keeping Dee Dee off the stand is no way to do that. They would be accused of throwing the case.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 01, 2012, 01:17:46 AM
Would BG be able to make that statement in testimony?   She could make a statement that she doesn't know of any other time TM walked to the 7/11, but I doubt she'd be able to make a statement that she  "believes" this was the first time.

As I said, there is no evidence on this point. Evidence would be someone saying they told Trayvon about the shortcut, or heard someone tell him, or heard Trayvon himself say he knew about. Evidence the other way would be someone who heard Trayvon say he always used the pedestrian gate because he didn't know any other way in.

What he did or didn't know isn't much of a proxy for what he did. If he knew about it he might have chosen not to use it. If he didn't know, as DebFrmHell mentioned, he might have learned about it that very night.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on November 01, 2012, 06:34:33 AM
The elephant in the DeeDee room is that we have no character witnesses that assure us that she is a truthful person and that it is credible that Trayvon gave a detailed account of his motions to her and that she remembered those details.  A good investigator would have had the phone records (and perhaps her Tweets) in front of him while questioning her and asked about each call she had on Feb. 26.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on November 01, 2012, 07:00:34 AM
Tracy Martin in an ealier interview(walk through) said that Trayvon came in through the gate.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Lousy1 on November 01, 2012, 07:20:42 AM
Didn't Chad  say in his police interview that  Trayvon had walked to  the 7/11 on Thursday?

His cousin also indicated that he drove Treyvon to the 7-11 and  then back to Chad's apartment that morning.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on November 01, 2012, 07:32:56 AM
Tracy Martin in an ealier interview(walk through) said that Trayvon came in through the gate.

Do you recall the date of that interview and how he knew that Trayvon came in through the gate?  Was this from the TV interview the day after the shooting with BG?

RJ, I hear you on an investigator wanting to know some facts before interviewing Dee Dee.  It seems to me that BDLR had an idea on a few things and the intent of his interview of Dee Dee wasn't to find out everything that Dee Dee had to offer, but find out enough information to put in an APC to get an arrest.   
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 01, 2012, 09:25:18 AM
Do you recall the date of that interview and how he knew that Trayvon came in through the gate?

That interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x34vSJrIqe0#) was with the Orlando Sentinel on March 22. (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-22/news/os-trayvon-martin-al-sharpton-rally-20120322_1_national-action-network-sharpton-crowd) 


0:52-1:07
Quote
So, but, listening to Zimmerman on the tapes, he was telling me that he was at the clubhouse. So, in fact, I did, when he said the clubhouse I knew for a fact that Trayvon came in that, in the front gate.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on November 01, 2012, 01:49:42 PM
Ok, so its just his guess based on GZ describing where TM was on the NEN, not that he has any information of the path TM to get from the store into the complex.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on November 01, 2012, 01:54:01 PM
That interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x34vSJrIqe0#) was with the Orlando Sentinel on March 22. (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-22/news/os-trayvon-martin-al-sharpton-rally-20120322_1_national-action-network-sharpton-crowd) 


0:52-1:07

Why edit out the rest of his answer to that question? The part that was actually Tracy's own answer, not the part where he is repeating what Zimmerman said.

Quote
0:35-0:52 "Presumably that was the path he took. I don't know of the exact path he took but he DID(emphasis Tracy's) go through that back gate...um, and I knew he was going to the back of the house. He was sitting out there. So, um...the police told me they would walk me through the scene and they never walked me through it...
That was a very odd statement by Tracy. It is almost as though half-way through his statement, he realized he let some information slip that was not supposed to and then tries to recover by parroting Zimmerman's statement.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 02, 2012, 12:33:04 AM
Why would Trayvon Martin turn to the right and go in the opposite direction from which he was staying?

Maybe because he had time to kill. He doesn't seem to have been in any hurry to get home.

Quote
   IIRC and the Google Map, the theater is not that far past where the convenience store is located. 

How do you know what theater they went to?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on November 02, 2012, 07:53:35 AM
Maybe because he had time to kill. He doesn't seem to have been in any hurry to get home.

How do you know what theater they went to?

The cousin said it was close by.  There are two theaters.  Seminole Town Center 10 and the UA AMstar 12 on the other side of I-4.

I took a wild guess that it had to be one of these two?  With such a huge selection to choose from it was difficult...   ;)



Best Guess:
Seminole TC10   Oregon->Rinehart->Town Center Blvd

The AmStar is on the other side of I-4 and maybe a couple of minutes more drivetime.

((Also, I thought they went to a McD's for fast food.  I read that somewhere but couldn't tell you where.  It could be a rumor for all I know.    There is a McD's close to the Seminole TC10.  Within a couple of minutes and there isn't another one close by.))
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 02, 2012, 09:52:12 AM
Also, I thought they went to a McD's for fast food.  I read that somewhere but couldn't tell you where.

It's in the cousin's SAO interview summary, p. 9 of the July 12 release. (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 02, 2012, 10:04:07 AM
Why edit out the rest of his answer to that question?

I wasn't talking about the interviewer's question. I was talking about a question raised by another commenter, and I quoted the part of Tracy Martin's statement that was pertinent to that.

Quote
That was a very odd statement by Tracy.

It is odd, but I don't think it is very odd for a grieving father to be making some odd statements. In the video he was clearly emotional, and his discourse seemed to slip towards a stream-of-consciousness ramble.

Quote
It is almost as though half-way through his statement, he realized he let some information slip that was not supposed to and then tries to recover by parroting Zimmerman's statement.

Did you notice that when Tracy said Trayvon came in through the back gate, he was gesturing toward the front gate? I think he just got the labels confused.

ETA: The back, or southeast, gate is the one closest to Brandy Green's home. It wouldn't be surprising if Tracy at first thought of it as the front gate, then remembered that the north gate is officially the front gate.
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 17, 2012, 09:55:09 PM
I had thought there was sort of a consensus that instead of returning through the gate, Trayvon had used a "shortcut"

My impression was that this theory became popular almost as soon as the existence of the shortcut was mentioned in some news report, before there was any other information to support. It seems to have an intuitive appeal for some reason.

Maybe part of the explanation is that both sides could interpret it favorably.

If Zimmerman saw Martin bypass the gate, that would be grounds for suspicion, although Zimmerman didn't say that on his police call. We know now that he also didn't say that in his SPD interviews.

For the other side it's more subtle, and not about Zimmerman but about the public perception of Martin. The shortcut was the shared knowledge and habit of the community. For Martin to use it, instead of the code that Brandy might have given him, makes him seem more like a member of the community.

That Dee Dee's story was more consistent with Martin using the gate seems to have passed mostly unnoticed on both sides.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on November 18, 2012, 12:17:55 AM
George said he first saw TM standing in the grassy area at Frank Taaffe's house (in the reenactment.) He never said he saw him use the cut-thru or the gate.

Quote
Zimmerman...Right here, right in front of this house
Investigator...Right in front of 1460
Zimmerman...Yes, sir
Investigator...And what was he...he was walking in between the buildings
Zimmerman....He was walking in the grassy area, like up towards kind of between these two poles like I said it was rainy and he wasn't, he was leisurely looking at the house and like I said, my wife is....I left for the grocery store and I just felt like something was off about him

Quote
....I  passed him and he kept staring at me and staring and looking around to see who else was...I don't know why he was looking
Investigator..did he walk off from there or did he stop there last night
Zimmerman...He stopped and he like looked around and that's why I...that's what threw me off was, it's raining, I didn't understand why somebody would be just stopping in the rain especially..it wasn't like he was trying to run to get out of the rain and I have never seen him before, he didn't look like he was exercising
Inspector...Where was he standing at when he stopped
Zimmerman...Right there, right there, in front of 1460
Investigator...on the sidewalk or on the grass
Zimmerman...no, on the grassy area
Investigator..On the grassy are. So about right in front of where the car is
Zimmermanm...Yes, sir
Inspector... And then you
Zimmerman...I drove past him and I went to the clubhouse up here on the right hand side
Invesitgator...And parked up there?
Zimmerman....Yes, sir
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: unitron on November 19, 2012, 08:18:06 AM
My impression was that this theory became popular almost as soon as the existence of the shortcut was mentioned in some news report, before there was any other information to support. It seems to have an intuitive appeal for some reason.

Maybe part of the explanation is that both sides could interpret it favorably.

If Zimmerman saw Martin bypass the gate, that would be grounds for suspicion, although Zimmerman didn't say that on his police call. We know now that he also didn't say that in his SPD interviews.

For the other side it's more subtle, and not about Zimmerman but about the public perception of Martin. The shortcut was the shared knowledge and habit of the community. For Martin to use it, instead of the code that Brandy might have given him, makes him seem more like a member of the community.

That Dee Dee's story was more consistent with Martin using the gate seems to have passed mostly unnoticed on both sides.

Wasn't the shortcut supposedly well known to those who came into the neighborhood to steal stuff as well?

Wouldn't knowing the code to get in the front gate (if that was necessary for pedestrians) be more indicative of someone who belonged there than knowing the shortcut?

And wasn't the idea that he used the shortcut based on where Zimmerman said he first saw Martin?

If Martin came in the front gate it would seem odd that he would go west towards Taaffe's house instead of east towards B. Green's.

Assuming he ever was where Zimmerman said.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on November 19, 2012, 01:02:01 PM
Thats one of the million dollar questions and an apparent large discrepancy in Dee Dee's and GZ's accounts.  She has TM going through the front gate and running to the mail kiosk to get out of the rain around 6:54 and staying there until he spots GZ watching him presumably some 15 minutes later.  GZ says he spots TM and calls NEN shortly thereafter putting the timing of his spotting TM by Taafe's somewhere around 7:08.  Who's information is false?

From the weather report, it seemed there was a mildly steady rain from about 6:30 to around 7ish when it started raining twice as hard until maybe 7:30 (the peak rainfall seems to be right around 7:15).  Why would TM run to shelter during a slow steady rain, then leave it to start walking as it was raining harder?  Why would TM run away from GZ towards his home while it was raining fairly hard, but then stay outside talking to Dee Dee and ending up in a confrontation no closer to home than when he first ran.  Why did Dee Dee say she could hear it "start drippin a little bit of water" as TM left the mail shelter, but couldn't hear any rain when the bumping and "little bit of get off" was heard, even though it was raining just as hard or harder at that time? 

If Dee Dee ever gets deposed or cross examined, it should be very illuminating.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 19, 2012, 09:22:28 PM
Why did Dee Dee say she could hear it "start drippin a little bit of water" as TM left the mail shelter

At that point Dee Dee didn't say she could hear the rain herself. She said Martin told her he 'put his hoodie on' because of the rain. That was in her SAO statement, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) on April 4 (7:06-18).

In her statement to Crump, Dee Dee said, 'He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on.' This is one of the snippets aired by ABC News (http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-killing-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts-063243901--abc-news.html) on March 20 (0:57-1:01). Gutman said the recording was made 'late Monday' (0:48-57).  March 20 was a Tuesday, so presumably Guman meant March 19.

I disagree with some transcripts of the SAO statement. I hear 'Because, he said, it was still a little bit dripping water'.
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 19, 2012, 10:02:14 PM
Wouldn't knowing the code to get in the front gate (if that was necessary for pedestrians) be more indicative of someone who belonged there than knowing the shortcut?

It was already known that Martin was Brandy Green's guest. Martin using the gate wouldn't add anything to that.

Quote
And wasn't the idea that he used the shortcut based on where Zimmerman said he first saw Martin?

My impression was that this theory became popular almost as soon as the existence of the shortcut was mentioned in some news report, before there was any other information to support.

My recollection may not be corrrect. Documenting it doesn't seem worth the time. I'll agree to disagree with anyone whose recollection is different.
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: unitron on November 22, 2012, 06:39:01 AM
It was already known that Martin was Brandy Green's guest. Martin using the gate wouldn't add anything to that.

...

That little nugget seems to have escaped Zimmerman's attention.
Title: Re: DeeDee told Crump TM entered gate with code?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 22, 2012, 06:49:09 AM
That little nugget seems to have escaped Zimmerman's attention.

Zimmerman didn't know Martin was a guest in the complex.

The people who liked the thought of Martin entering through the shortcut did know that.

That's why I wrote:

Quote
For the other side it's more subtle, and not about Zimmerman but about the public perception of Martin.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on November 22, 2012, 03:03:55 PM
My thought is that if Martin didn't know about the short cut, he certainly figured it out on his way back.  It isn't like there is a brick fence there.  ((Some kind of trellis or something.))  Zimmerman picks him up visually in the grassy area by Taafe's TH.  If Martin came in through the pedestrian gate, there is no reason for him to walk down towards the Taafe TH. 

He and his cousin had driven to 7-Eleven that morning to buy Black and Milds and he would have a visual on the clubhouse for reference so I don't think he was turned around.  Not out of the question, however.

His cousin had some quote in the paper about how he walked the path that TM took home and he goes to the shortcut to retrace the steps.  I remember it because he wouldn't take the dog walk back.  He took to the surface street (TTL) both ways instead.  He said goodbye to Martin at the E-W sidewalk.  Honestly, I thought it was very touching.  There is no doubt in my mind that Martin was loved.

BUT that statement has been a curiosity to me.  IIRC, it was before the NEN call (19th?) was released so how would he know?  If Crump is telling the media that Martin went through the pedestrian gate why wouldn't the cousin continue with that path?  If he got the information from Tracy Martin who must have watched the reenactment on video then does that mean that Crump was just lying to the press?  Or did he get it directly from Dee Dee?  She really doesn't say much about where Martin actually was for that 40 some-odd minute trip after leaving the 7-Eleven, choosing instead to pick it up at the mail kiosk in her interview.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 22, 2012, 10:47:35 PM
My thought is that if Martin didn't know about the short cut, he certainly figured it out on his way back.

How do you know Martin was interested in looking for a different way into the complex? For all I know, that was the farthest thing from his mind.

Quote
It isn't like there is a brick fence there.  ((Some kind of trellis or something.))

Are you talking about 1460/1510, or 1350/1410?

I don't think I've seen any pictures of 1350/1410 from close to 2/26/12. The Google Earth street views are from the previous April.

Quote
If Martin came in through the pedestrian gate, there is no reason for him to walk down towards the Taafe TH.

There are at least two possible reasons.

Martin might have been doing what Zimmerman thought he was doing.

Martin might have backtracked to put off going home.

Brandy Green's spontaneous explanation for the 7/11 expedition made strong impression on me. (Video, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w47eL_jTieI) 1:12-17).

Quote
He don't know anybody here. He just came down here. He was bored. So he walked to the store.

She didn't say a word about Martin intending to buy anything, for himself or Chad.

From the timeline, it seems Martin went straight to the store, then took his time going home.

It seems to me that Martin was walking to alleviate his boredom. He included a visit to a 7-11 because there happened to be one in walking distance, and it made the walk a bit more interesting. Had there been no 7-11, I think he still would have been walking, to alleviate his boredom. That would be his reason for walking wherever he walked.

If Martin came in through 1350/1410, he would still have to backtrack for Zimmerman to see him in front of 1460.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Kyreth on November 23, 2012, 01:25:11 AM
Of course...according to Deedee Trayvon was in a hurry to get home.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 23, 2012, 02:00:28 AM
Of course...according to Deedee Trayvon was in a hurry to get home.

Dee Dee's story is full of holes, about as much so as Zimmerman's. She has been questioned for a shorter time, and has yet to face unfriendly questioning.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on November 23, 2012, 05:06:03 AM
How do you know Martin was interested in looking for a different way into the complex? For all I know, that was the farthest thing from his mind.

Are you talking about 1460/1510, or 1350/1410?

I don't think I've seen any pictures of 1350/1410 from close to 2/26/12. The Google Earth street views are from the previous April.

There are at least two possible reasons.

Martin might have been doing what Zimmerman thought he was doing.

Martin might have backtracked to put off going home.

Brandy Green's spontaneous explanation for the 7/11 expedition made strong impression on me. (Video, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w47eL_jTieI) 1:12-17).

She didn't say a word about Martin intending to buy anything, for himself or Chad.

From the timeline, it seems Martin went straight to the store, then took his time going home.

It seems to me that Martin was walking to alleviate his boredom. He included a visit to a 7-11 because there happened to be one in walking distance, and it made the walk a bit more interesting. Had there been no 7-11, I think he still would have been walking, to alleviate his boredom. That would be his reason for walking wherever he walked.

If Martin came in through 1350/1410, he would still have to backtrack for Zimmerman to see him in front of 1460.
The shortcut by F Taafe's house.

Martin had been at the complex before.   According to reports some 5-8 times.  IIRC, he had walked to that store at least once prior to the 26th.  If he didn't see or know about the shortcut, he would have noticed it on the way going to and used it coming back. 

The brick wall ends on the Oregon side of the street roughly behind the Taafe TH.  George sees him around the grassy area by Taafe's house.  That is why I don't think much about the 1350/1410.

Plus there is the weather conditions to consider.  I have often wondered if he didn't seek shelter under one of those patios at the shortcut when the rain picked up.  Not the "mail thing" as reported by Dee Dee.  If she is protecting the image of her friend, and I suspect that she is to a point, telling the SAO that he was hanging out on a strange patio sounds much worse and could lead to misinterpretation as to his reason for being there. 

There is one other thing that kind of bugs me.  The night of the game, Tracy Martin bought sweat shirts for them to put on because they were cold.  He said something like TM put his on then put his hoodie back on over it.  Why is TM still in the same combination of shirts the next night? 

I'm kind of a bum.  I like to wear a certain favorite sweat when I am cold but I have a different tee shirt on underneath every time because I have showered and changed.  Maybe he wasn't that comfortable taking a  daily shower at the Green TH.  He was a teenager...who knows...((shrugs))
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 23, 2012, 10:16:44 AM
Are you talking about 1460/1510, or 1350/1410?
The shortcut by F Taafe's house.

Frank Taaffe's house is 1460 RVC.

Is there a picture of the 1460/1510 gap that shows the trellis? I don't see it here. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/7250582536/in/set-72157629976024341/lightbox/)

If Martin approached the complex on Oregon Ave., going in by 1460/1510, then east on RVC, would be a slightly longer way around than the front gate. You can check for yourself on Google Earth.

Martin's shortest way home would be by 1460/1510, then south on RVC to Long Oak Way. A commenter on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7713504916/in/set-72157630845830014) pointed this out to me.

Quote
If he didn't see or know about the shortcut, he would have noticed it

I don't think RVC is visible through the 1460/1510 gap from Oregon Ave. On the Google Earth overhead, it looks as if someone far enough west on Oregon Ave. to have such a vantage, would instead have his view blocked by one of the buildings in the neighboring Colonial Village complex. I tried to check this with some street views, but I couldn't be sure because there are also trees blocking the view.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 23, 2012, 12:07:17 PM

His cousin had some quote in the paper about how he walked the path that TM took home and he goes to the shortcut to retrace the steps.

You mean the recent Esquire (http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/trayvon-martin-1212) article?

Quote
For Boobie, the dream goes like this . . . [snip first dream]

Or he's walking Trayvon's last walk, which he did for real a couple of days after Trayvon passed. He walks out of the house down that empty street, past the clubhouse and through the shortcut and down the grass path along the side of the road. He walks to the store and then he turns around and walks back. All the way he's talking to Trayvon. I miss you so much, man.

When he gets to the sidewalk where Trayvon stopped, he doesn't go no farther. I'll see you later, he says.

And Trayvon says, A'ight.

It doesn't say the dream was like the actual walk in every particular.

Quote
BUT that statement has been a curiosity to me.  IIRC, it was before the NEN call (19th?) was released

The calls were released on March 16.

I would think the interview was done recently. Stephen's dreams may have been influenced by things he heard.

In Stephen's dreams there was a 'grass path', where in reality there is a sidewalk.

Quote
If he got the information from Tracy Martin

Tracy Martin said he thought Trayvon came in through the gate. That's been discussed on a couple of threads.

Quote
Tracy Martin who must have watched the reenactment on video

Do you mean you think the SPD showed Tracy the reenactment video before it was released to the public? I've heard nothing to suggest that.

Quote
Or did he get it directly from Dee Dee?

I don't know of any evidence that Stephen ever talked to Dee Dee, let alone within a few days of the shooting.

Quote
She really doesn't say much about where Martin actually was for that 40 some-odd minute trip after leaving the 7-Eleven, choosing instead to pick it up at the mail kiosk in her interview.

De la Rionda (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) walked her back to Martin entering the complex.

5:38-53
Quote
De la Rionda: It started raining. And did he go somewhere?

Dee Dee: Yeah, he ran to the mail thing.

De la Rionda: Like, I'm sorry, what?

Dee Dee: Like a mail -

De la Rionda: Like a mail -

Dee Dee: shed. Like a shed.

De la Rionda: -like a shed, like a mail area -

Dee Dee: Yeah.

De la Rionda: - like a covered area -

Dee Dee: Yeah.

De la Rionda: - because it was raining?

Dee Dee: Yeah.

De la Rionda: So did he tell you he was already inside, like, the gated place?

Dee Dee: Yeah, he ran in there. 

To me it sounds like Martin started to run when the rain started, ran through the gate, and kept running until he reached the mail shade.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on November 23, 2012, 05:40:56 PM
NM, that isn't a dream that Boobie (Stephen) is referring to...

Quote
...which he did for real a couple of days after Trayvon passed.


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 23, 2012, 11:20:14 PM
NM, that isn't a dream that Boobie (Stephen) is referring to...

Quote
...which he  did for real a couple of days after Trayvon passed.

That's all the article says about the real life walk. It's passed over in a single sentence, saying only that it happened. All the subsequent details refer to the dream.

When I first read the article, I also assumed the details attributed to the dream were implied to be shared with the real walk. On reflection I don't think that is true.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on November 26, 2012, 08:48:52 AM
At that point Dee Dee didn't say she could hear the rain herself. She said Martin told her he 'put his hoodie on' because of the rain. That was in her SAO statement, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) on April 4 (7:06-18).

In her statement to Crump, Dee Dee said, 'He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on.' This is one of the snippets aired by ABC News (http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-killing-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts-063243901--abc-news.html) on March 20 (0:57-1:01). Gutman said the recording was made 'late Monday' (0:48-57).  March 20 was a Tuesday, so presumably Guman meant March 19.


I disagree with some transcripts of the SAO statement. I hear 'Because, he said, it was still a little bit dripping water'.

Thanks for the correction.  It was Dee Dee relaying TM's words about it raining and putting his hood up, not that she is saying whether she heard the rain or not at that time.  There is a point later in the BDLR interview where he asks her if she hears it raining [after TM lost GZ and during the call that lasted between 7:12-7:16] and she says its not raining because she can hear TM clearly.  Thats an interesting statement for her to make since this is the time it was probably raining the hardest according to weather reports and witnesses statements.   I don't hear rain on the GZ recording with NEN though it seems pretty clear it was raining at that time, so my guess is that she has no idea whether its raining or not, but it is a bit strange she would say it wasn't raining and give a reasoning for how she knows it.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on November 26, 2012, 11:22:21 AM
It's going to be interesting listening to a clear copy of DD's interview with Crump. Assuming MOM can get a copy of it. Comparing and contrasting the earlier interview with the one with BDLR may reveal indications of an evolving story. Or rather, refinements of the story.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 26, 2012, 09:27:48 PM
I don't hear rain on the GZ recording with NEN

A long time ago I tried listening for rain on Zimmerman's police call. There were times I thought I could hear the rain.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on November 27, 2012, 01:01:43 AM
Thats an interesting statement for her to make since this is the time it was probably raining the hardest according to weather reports and witnesses statements.

W-11 and W-18 both remarked that they wondered why anyone would be out in such rain, and W-20 implied that the rain was making it hard to hear what was happening outside.

Direct quotes. (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/6/2/142039/6821/24#24)
Title: Defense Requests Court Order for Crump's DeeDee Interview
Post by: MJW on November 30, 2012, 03:23:12 PM
The defense filed a very interesting motion (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/1112/motion_to_compel.pdf) asking the court to order Crump to turn over the original recording and recording device from his interview with DeeDee. Less than halfway through, I guessed by the tone that it was written by West, not O'Mara.

There's lots of juicy stuff in the motion, including the fact that DeeDee is 18, and was 18 when she was interviewed by Crump . And that that was edited out of the BDLR DeeDee interview originally given to the defense. West also says they asked Crump who was on DeeDee's end of the call, but Crump didn't respond.
Title: Re: Defense Requests Court Order for Crump's DeeDee Interview
Post by: DebFrmHell on November 30, 2012, 09:05:43 PM
The defense filed a very interesting motion (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/1112/motion_to_compel.pdf) asking the court to order Crump to turn over the original recording and recording device from his interview with DeeDee. Less than halfway through, I guessed by the tone that it was written by West, not O'Mara.

There's lots of juicy stuff in the motion, including the fact that DeeDee is 18, and was 18 when she was interviewed by Crump . And that that was edited out of the BDLR DeeDee interview originally given to the defense. West also says they asked Crump who was on DeeDee's end of the call, but Crump didn't respond.
Why was I laughing by the time I got thru reading that Motion to Compel?  Don West...I think I ((heart)) him.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on December 15, 2012, 03:03:39 AM
Conservative Tree House has a thread where a March 28 tweet from ABC news associate Candace Smith is shown, which says:

Quote
Candace Smith @CandaceSmith_

@ABC also has only interview w/ #Trayvon girlfriend. She told me & @mattgutmanABC that Trayvon said Zimmerman pursued him and he was afraid

28 Mar 12

If Smith was actually at the interview, Crump left her off the list of those present. From ABC news, he listed only Matt  Gutman and a male assistant. DebFrmHell got an tweet admission from ABC producer Seni Tienbeso that he was the assistant.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: hexx on December 15, 2012, 04:01:10 AM
Conservative Tree House has a thread where a March 28 tweet from ABC news associate Candace Smith is shown, which says:

If Smith was actually at the interview, Crump left her off the list of those present. From ABC news, he listed only Matt  Gutman and a male assistant. DebFrmHell got an tweet admission from ABC producer Seni Tienbeso that he was the assistant.


Conservative Tree House has also a story about how Candace Smith was the person who produced the degraded, fuzzy version lacking the exculpable details off the original HD video file she received on disk ...

Quote
Ms. Smith was provided a direct hi-def copy DVD;  But for some reason she was unable to get it to load through their equipment (or so the story is told).    Sources indicate she was quite agitated, and so, trying to meet a deadline, she went angrily to City Hall.  Once there she raised quite a stink about SPD, not giving her and ABC suitable material, nor actually fulfilling the request.

The city played her copy on their equipment and showed her it worked.

Apparently, she was pushing to make a deadline to go on air and asked if she could just video the material from the city’s monitor.    The request was granted.    The video was filmed with a small minicam similar to the one held in this picture (above).


so, anonymous sources, but interesting anyway
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on December 15, 2012, 07:50:30 PM

Conservative Tree House has also a story about how Candace Smith was the person who produced the degraded, fuzzy version lacking the exculpable details off the original HD video file she received on disk ...


so, anonymous sources, but interesting anyway

Save me a trip to the Treehouse---is that supposed to be the video of the cop car pulling into the station and a handcuffed Zimmerman getting out of the back seat and then either you can or cannot see wounds on the back of his head?


(If so, I have to wonder why the other networks didn't get DVDs from the SPD of that footage at the same time)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on December 15, 2012, 09:06:04 PM
Save me a trip to the Treehouse---is that supposed to be the video of the cop car pulling into the station and a handcuffed Zimmerman getting out of the back seat and then either you can or cannot see wounds on the back of his head?

Yes.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Redbrow on December 15, 2012, 09:48:33 PM
Why isn't DeeDee's real name known to the public now? She is an adult and Judge Lester ruled that witnesses who gave media interviews can be named. Judge Nelson has not overruled any of Lester's rulings.

Quote
But Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. ordered the release of the names of witnesses who had previously talked publicly to reporters.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-25/news/os-george-zimmerman-scret-witness-names-20120725_1_trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-mary-cutcher

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on December 15, 2012, 11:13:53 PM
Why isn't DeeDee's real name known to the public now? She is an adult and Judge Lester ruled that witnesses who gave media interviews can be named. Judge Nelson has not overruled any of Lester's rulings.

For some reason, even though Judge Lester ruled that witnesses who willing talked to the press cannot remain anonymous, the only witnesses whose names have been revealed are those who publicly identified themselves. For example, W18 has given press interviews but her name hasn't been released (though I know it). I don't know why the media hasn't insisted the order be followed as written. I guess for the same reason -- whatever it may be -- that they've allowed the state's very broad interpretation of the communications privacy laws in regard to phone records to go unchallenged.

In Lester's ruling, he specifically exempted those who only appeared incidentally in news footage filmed on the night of the shooting. If he only intended his order to apply to those who had given their names in the media, the exemption wouldn't have been necessary.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 16, 2012, 06:46:06 AM
For some reason, even though Judge Lester ruled that witnesses who willing talked to the press cannot remain anonymous, the only witnesses whose names have been revealed are those who publicly identified themselves. For example, W18 has given press interviews but her name hasn't been released (though I know it). I don't know why the media hasn't insisted the order be followed as written. I guess for the same reason -- whatever it may be -- that they've allowed the state's very broad interpretation of the communications privacy laws in regard to phone records to go unchallenged.

In Lester's ruling, he specifically exempted those who only appeared incidentally in news footage filmed on the night of the shooting. If he only intended his order to apply to those who had given their names in the media, the exemption wouldn't have been necessary.

I thought that W18 did all of her interviews "anonymously" and that was why her name has remained somewhat shielded.

Chad got interviewed by either Gilbreath or O'Steen but never BDLR?  Not Serino?  Not Singleton?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on December 16, 2012, 11:35:12 AM
I thought that W18 did all of her interviews "anonymously" and that was why her name has remained somewhat shielded.

She did, but Lester's order was that witnesses who gave media interviews wouldn't have their identities protected. It didn't just apply to witnesses who willing revealed their names.

As far as Chad goes, the investigators' apparent lack of interest in Chad is quite surprising, especially given that certain aspects of his story don't seem to make sense.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 16, 2012, 12:01:24 PM
She did, but Lester's order was that witnesses who gave media interviews wouldn't have their identities protected. It didn't just apply to witnesses who willing revealed their names.

As far as Chad goes, the investigators' apparent lack of interest in Chad is quite surprising, especially given that certain aspects of his story don't seem to make sense.

I think he is the mysterious W10.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on December 16, 2012, 12:14:38 PM
I think he is the mysterious W10.

I'm almost certain he is.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on December 18, 2012, 07:25:28 PM
I hope somebody will give me remedial instruction in DeeDee 101.  Why didn't the police know about DeeDee right away?  Why couldn't they immediately subpoena the phone records?  The fact that Tracy Martin didn't give them a pin seems only to do with access to the internal memory on the phone.  The phone company knows who was on the phone with Trayvon.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 07:39:01 PM
Why couldn't they immediately subpoena the phone records? 

I've have yet to see an explanation for why it took so long to get a court order for the phone records.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: FromBelow on January 08, 2013, 12:35:28 PM
The Crump DD interview was just released by @GZlegalCase

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/78-11th-supplemental-discovery
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 08, 2013, 12:41:38 PM
The Crump DD interview was just released by @GZlegalCase

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/78-11th-supplemental-discovery
Still no sign of Gutman's version?  I can understand Crump but not DeeDee on these.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 08, 2013, 04:49:08 PM
The defense tells HLN News they might try to get Dee Dee's testimony excluded (10:16 on video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sQuKA89yNTY#!)).
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 08, 2013, 06:20:54 PM
The defense tells HLN News they might try to get Dee Dee's testimony excluded (10:16 on video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sQuKA89yNTY#!)).

More precisely, HCN tells us the defense told them they might try to get Dee Dee's testimony excluded "because of that tainted beginning of that interview with Mr. Crump." I don't know what legal theory would disallow a witness merely because of a tainted prior interview with someone who's not even an agent of the state. My hypothesis is that the defense thinks they might be able to exclude DeeDee as a witness, but that the reporter misunderstood why.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on January 08, 2013, 09:29:47 PM
More precisely, HCN tells us the defense told them they might try to get Dee Dee's testimony excluded "because of that tainted beginning of that interview with Mr. Crump." I don't know what legal theory would disallow a witness merely because of a tainted prior interview with someone who's not even an agent of the state. My hypothesis is that the defense thinks they might be able to exclude DeeDee as a witness, but that the reporter misunderstood why.

I doubt Jean got it wrong. She said O'Mara said if the tape was edited in any way, they might seek to exclude Dee Dee because of the tainted beginning.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 08, 2013, 09:54:49 PM
I doubt Jean got it wrong. She said O'Mara said if the tape was edited in any way, they might seek to exclude Dee Dee because of the tainted beginning.

Does that make sense to you, that a witness could be excluded because a tape of an interview with the witness conducted by a lawyer not acting for the state was modified by that lawyer?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 08, 2013, 10:02:40 PM
Does that make sense to you, that a witness could be excluded because a tape of an interview with the witness conducted by a lawyer not acting for the state was modified by that lawyer?

It doesn't make sense to me. (IANAL)

I wonder if it's a stunt, to call attention to the issue.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 08, 2013, 10:26:22 PM
It doesn't make sense to me. (IANAL)

I wonder if it's a stunt, to call attention to the issue.

I have thought that there is the possibility that Crump handed the tape to Gutman and Gutman married his questions to the relevant parts.

One thing I am certain of is that IF W8 said there was "Get Off, Get Off" Gutman would have lead with that in his teasers for the interview.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 08, 2013, 10:28:35 PM
I wonder if it's a stunt, to call attention to the issue.

If it was a stunt or a bluff, that seems like poor strategy to me, because it makes the defense look confused or desperate. Maybe there's some basis in Florida law for what O'Mara was reported to have said, but I've read Florida cases that say excluding a witness with relevant testimony is a last resort, so I can't see it happening for the reasons O'Mara is said to have given.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 08, 2013, 10:49:10 PM
Maybe there's some basis in Florida law for what O'Mara was reported to have said

The last time this came up, I looked through the Florida evidence code and criminal procedure statutes for anything that seemed relevant to excluding witness testimony. I didn't find anything like that.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 08, 2013, 11:31:25 PM
The last time this came up, I looked through the Florida evidence code and criminal procedure statutes for anything that seemed relevant to excluding witness testimony. I didn't find anything like that.

It makes no sense to me that there would be. The recording is inadmissible hearsay, that can only be used for limited purposes like impeaching DeeDee's testimony with prior inconsistent statements. The defense would be disadvantaged if inconsistent statements had been edited out of the recording, but no more than if the recording didn't exist in the first place.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 09, 2013, 04:26:18 PM
Still no sign of Gutman's version? 

I'm beginning to doubt Gutman has a better version.

I think we have all been assuming that because ABC News seemed to imply that the clips they were playing were from the Crump interview. I don't think they ever explicitly said that. They could all be from separate interviews of Dee Dee by Gutman alone.

Of course, those interviews will also be interesting, and potentially impeachment material.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 09, 2013, 06:58:12 PM
https://twitter.com/mattgutmanABC/status/185073162889859072

Some of what Matt put in his reports come from the Crump/W8 interview others come from later interviews.

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/interview-of-w8-comparison/
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 09, 2013, 07:25:42 PM
Quote
Chuck R. ‏@GLPiggy                                                                                             28 March

@mattgutmanabc did you actually hear the recording of the phone call b/w Martin and his girlfriend?
Details
Matt Gutman Matt Gutman ‏@mattgutmanABC

@GLPiggy i am the only person who has that recording.

Is Gutman having some fun at this guy's expense?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 09, 2013, 08:59:27 PM
Quote
Chuck R. ‏@GLPiggy                                                                                             28 March

@mattgutmanabc did you actually hear the recording of the phone call b/w Martin and his girlfriend?
Details
Matt Gutman Matt Gutman ‏@mattgutmanABC

@GLPiggy i am the only person who has that recording.

Is Gutman having some fun at this guy's expense?

It would be really funny if there is such a recording, which only Dee Dee and Gutman know about because Crump and de la Rionda didn't ask.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on January 09, 2013, 11:23:53 PM
Is Gutman having some fun at this guy's expense?


Probably.

Eveybody knows the NSA has the only copy.

 ;D
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 09, 2013, 11:34:22 PM
Everybody knows the NSA has the only copy.

Only because they were tracking Dee Dee. She must be a 22 year old Sudanese terrorist, under cover as an 18-year-old who pretends to be 16.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 10, 2013, 03:10:15 AM

Here's the part of the HLN interview, (Part 4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dAeptXn9zk8#!) in which O'Mara mentioned possible exclusion of Dee Dee (9:28-32).

It does sound to me like O'Mara was saying that editing of the tape might by itself be grounds for exclusion.

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQuKA89yNTY)

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BM3dcou4fk)

part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiytwuzT2To)

The interview is being discussed at CTH, and one commenter linked to an interesting law review article. (http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=lawfaculty)

I haven't finished reading it. The pdf is searchable, so I searched for 'Florida' and got no matches.

As I read it, it doesn't seem there is grounds for excluding witnesses on grounds of 'taint' unless there is some state involvement in misconduct.

ETA: It seems the interview has been on YouTube for a month, so it's at least that old. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 10, 2013, 03:38:15 AM
After reading a post by MJW at CTH, I think I misread the article I linked in the last post. I thought the author was discussing current law and practice. But now I think, as MJW suggested, the author was discussing his own ideas for reform, to make it easier to exclude witnesses on grounds of taint.

Even under his proposals, a witness would not be excluded only because of the actions of a person who is not a state agent.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 10, 2013, 12:01:14 PM
Is Gutman having some fun at this guy's expense?

I was confused by that as well but then I was reminded that Matt cleared up what he was talking about later, so I went and looked it up.

In this tweet Matt says;
"why do people think there is a "recording" between Martin and his GF when @ABC reported only that we have the "call logs." curious?"
https://twitter.com/mattgutmanABC/status/185660608836927488

Someone shows him that original tweet and Matt replies;
"now i understand: recording of the original conversation with the GF, not the recording of her conversation with him that night."
https://twitter.com/mattgutmanABC/status/185775580904554496
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 10, 2013, 12:28:47 PM
It does sound like O'Mara is saying DeeDee might be excluded as a result of the Crump interview. That still seems to me to be highly unlikely. I'll repost a comment I made on Conservative Treehouse:

That's a law review article saying what the author thinks should be done. The most on-point case I know of for Florida is Cardona v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5438639481011993888&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 826 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2002). The court never suggests the witness should have been excluded, even though the witness was allegedly coached by the state prosecutors, not a private attorney. The court says the defense should have been provided with information to use in cross examining the witness. The 1st DCA said in Donaldson v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11243121236479740827&hl=en&as_sdt=5,45&sciodt=2,45), 656 So. 2d 580  (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) that "the severe sanction of witness exclusion should be a last resort reserved only for the most extreme or compelling circumstances, particularly when the excluded testimony relates to critical issues or facts and the testimony is not cumulative." Exclusion "should be invoked only after the trial court has conducted an adequate inquiry to determine whether any other reasonable alternatives might be used to overcome or mitigate possible prejudice."

I just don't see any reasonable possibility that DeeDee would be excluded as a witness because of the questionable Crump interview. That isn't necessarily to say she won't be excluded for some other reason.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 10, 2013, 01:15:56 PM
What a strange marriage this case has become.  CTH and TL.  I got the same kind of thing going on w/Twitter. 
:o

;D

 L freaking OL.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Kyreth on January 10, 2013, 01:37:44 PM
Where I think there may be merit to disqualify W8, is that the entirety of what she has to offer is heresay brought in under one of the exceptions...but I remember the mention that said heresay isn't allowed if there is reason to doubt the truthfulness of it.

So, the provably untrue statements she made, the self contradictions, etc. might be a way to get her testimony excluded, and Crump's meddling probably would make it easier for the Judge to come to that decision.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 10, 2013, 01:52:45 PM
Where I think there may be merit to disqualify W8, is that the entirety of what she has to offer is heresay brought in under one of the exceptions...but I remember the mention that said heresay isn't allowed if there is reason to doubt the truthfulness of it.

So, the provably untrue statements she made, the self contradictions, etc. might be a way to get her testimony excluded, and Crump's meddling probably would make it easier for the Judge to come to that decision.
But what about BDLR getting her to agree that Martin said things while he was excited?  Wouldn't that change what is considered hearsay? 


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 10, 2013, 03:20:08 PM
But what about BDLR getting her to agree that Martin said things while he was excited?  Wouldn't that change what is considered hearsay?

I once believed it would make a difference, but it wouldn't. The rule in Florida used to be that a spontaneous statement had to be made while in an excited emotional state to be admissible. A few years ago, the state supreme court changed to rule to conform with the equivalent federal rule of evidence, which doesn't require any particular emotional state.

Also, it's hearsay no matter what. The question is whether it's admissible hearsay.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 10, 2013, 03:38:51 PM
Where I think there may be merit to disqualify W8, is that the entirety of what she has to offer is heresay brought in under one of the exceptions...but I remember the mention that said heresay isn't allowed if there is reason to doubt the truthfulness of it.

So, the provably untrue statements she made, the self contradictions, etc. might be a way to get her testimony excluded, and Crump's meddling probably would make it easier for the Judge to come to that decision.

That's an interesting point. The rule against unreliable hearsay was mainly intended to prevent hearsay statements from anonymous witnesses, but isn't limited to that. The problem seems to me to be that the purpose is to exclude hearsay statements that may themselves be unreliable. The contention isn't that Martin made false statements to DeeDee; it's that DeeDee falsely reported the statements that Martin made. Since DeeDee will have to take the stand and testify, her credibility can be tested through cross examination.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on January 11, 2013, 12:30:33 AM
If the young lady heard a conversation between Zimmerman and Martin, then she's an earwitness, pretty much the same as if she'd been inside one of the houses with a window open and heard it.

And unlike some other ear witness, she'd know which voice was Martin's and which wasn't.

In order to disqualify that, I'd think someone would have to be able to actually show that she'd been coached to give a false account, not just suggest that she might have been.



Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 11, 2013, 07:10:44 AM
If the young lady heard a conversation between Zimmerman and Martin, then she's an earwitness, pretty much the same as if she'd been inside one of the houses with a window open and heard it.

And unlike some other ear witness, she'd know which voice was Martin's and which wasn't.

In order to disqualify that, I'd think someone would have to be able to actually show that she'd been coached to give a false account, not just suggest that she might have been.
If both she and Martin hung up on the call at the same time, then she is lying.  Can such a thing be determined?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on January 11, 2013, 07:52:15 AM
If both she and Martin hung up on the call at the same time, then she is lying.  Can such a thing be determined?

Well, supposedly Martin was too busy with other stuff to tend to actually hanging up the call.

I suppose the records might show which phone disconnected from the other.

I doubt the two of them would have been able to hang up at the exact same millisecond.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 11, 2013, 08:49:21 AM
I know there has been discussion in the past concerning Trayvon's ear buds.  Was it determined whether where they finally ended up was or was not consistent with DeeDee's account?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 11, 2013, 11:17:32 AM

And unlike some other ear witness, she'd know which voice was Martin's and which wasn't.


One would think.  She describe the other voice as being deep, "like an old man".  Since GZ doesn't have a deep voice, does that mean she's saying GZ wasn't involved in the conversation she heard?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 11, 2013, 12:10:17 PM
One would think.  She describe the other voice as being deep, "like an old man".  Since GZ doesn't have a deep voice, does that mean she's saying GZ wasn't involved in the conversation she heard?
She also said that he was out of breath when he was asking why TM was there.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on January 11, 2013, 07:10:15 PM
One would think.  She describe the other voice as being deep, "like an old man".  Since GZ doesn't have a deep voice, does that mean she's saying GZ wasn't involved in the conversation she heard?

Maybe George was "butching it up".

I can use my usual voice, or I can drop down into "that guy who used to do all the movie trailer voiceovers" mode if I think it's called for.

(In a world where I'm standing in the dark asking some guy what he's doing around here...)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 11, 2013, 08:27:35 PM
Was it determined whether where they finally ended up was or was not consistent with DeeDee's account?

I haven't heard of anything new on the earphones.

They were probably collected by ME Investigator Tara Malphurs. There is still no written report from her that I know of. The summary of her SAO interview is 35/284. (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)   
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 11, 2013, 08:43:13 PM
So the claim, often made, that they were found in a pocket of Martin's hoodie is not backed up in any of the discovery?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 11, 2013, 09:26:57 PM
So the claim, often made, that they were found in a pocket of Martin's hoodie is not backed up in any of the discovery?

No, that's not true. Page 22 of the 184 page PDF:

DMS-10 PERSONAL EFFECTS
One (1) red "711" brand name lighter, photo button, bag of skittles, and headphones.
and collected from with in the victim's pockets.


Whether that's accurate or not is a reasonable question. There's certainly reason to doubt the photo button was in his pocket instead of pinned to the hoodie. I do wonder why if the headphone was on the ground beside Martin, an evidence marker wasn't used to mark the location.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 11, 2013, 09:54:59 PM
The report the headphones were in his pocket could have (and likely did) come from Diana Smith's report on page 80 which said:

The victim had $ 40.15 in US currency, a bag of skittles, red lighter, headphones, photo pin in his pockets or on him.


Perhaps the phones were still on Martin's head. That seems a bit unlikely to me, since I wouldn't expect headphones to stay on in a scuffle on any sort, and I would expect that if they were on his head, that would have mentioned by a first-responder. Another possibility is they were not on his head, but hung  by the wire that went inside the hoodie through the neck hole. From the 7-Eleven video, I can't quite tell where the cell phone is and how it connects to the headphones.

I don't think the SPD did a terrible job of investigating, but they did (from the what we've seen so far) seem to fall short in documenting the scene.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 11, 2013, 09:58:32 PM
So the claim, often made, that they were found in a pocket of Martin's hoodie is not backed up in any of the discovery?

No, that's not true.

I didn't say, or intend to imply, that it is.

What is true, is that nothing in the discovery shows the claim to be supported by a person identified as an eyewitness. Everyone identified as an eyewitness said they were next to the body.

We've been over this, starting here. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2055.msg103037.html#msg103037)

It's not on topic for the W-8 thread.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 11, 2013, 10:15:47 PM
Anything relating to DeeDee's credibility is on topic here.  Have Smith and Malphurs been deposed by the defense?  They may have rough notes about where things were originally found.  The ear buds and picture button are certainly out of place in a pocket unless Trayvon put them there in preparation for his fateful encounter.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 11, 2013, 10:55:06 PM
The report the headphones were in his pocket could have (and likely did) come from Diana Smith's report on page 80

Response on a new thread. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2288.msg105350.html#msg105350)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 12, 2013, 01:39:31 AM
Anything relating to DeeDee's credibility is on topic here.

I didn't mean to suggest you were off topic when you raised the question.

I meant that debating the earphones/button problem in detail would be off topic.

Quote
Have Smith and Malphurs been deposed by the defense? 

CST Diana Smith was scheduled to be deposed on 10/18. (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/depositions/notice_of_deposition_on_10.18.12.pdf) SPD Officer Joseph Santiago was scheduled for deposition the same day.

ME Investigator Tara Malphurs was scheduled for deposition on 11/20. (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/depositions/notice_of_deposition_on_11.20.12.pdf)

SPD Sgt. Leon Ciesla was scheduled for deposition on 10/17. (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/depositions/notice_of_deposition_on_10.17.12.pdf)

The other person I would expect to give information pertinent to where the earphones were found is SPD Sgt. Stacie McCoy. I have no information on her being deposed.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 12, 2013, 08:23:57 AM
Somebody straighten me out about depositions in Florida, please.  Must representatives from both defense and prosecution be present?  That has to be the difference between depositions and interviews, I guess.  What does the sunshine law in that state say about when the transcript must be made public?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 12, 2013, 12:45:58 PM
Somebody straighten me out about depositions in Florida, please.  Must representatives from both defense and prosecution be present?  That has to be the difference between depositions and interviews, I guess.  What does the sunshine law in that state say about when the transcript must be made public?

Yes, both the defense and prosecution are present and can question the witness. The questioning proceeds much as it would in a trial.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 12, 2013, 05:41:10 PM
What does the sunshine law in that state say about when the transcript must be made public?

It doesn't have to be, says GZLegal. (http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/61-notices-of-deposition)

Quote
Depositions are not open to the public, and the transcripts of depositions are not necessarily considered discovery, and therefore may not necessarily become part of public record.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 16, 2013, 04:45:59 AM
If I'm right, the defense already knows the earphones were next to the body. They have the photographs.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 16, 2013, 04:48:41 AM

We've been wondering why O'Mara hasn't gone after Gutman's recording. A commenter on The Conservative Treehouse has found a good answer. In Florida, journalists have 'qualified privilege'.

Fla. Stat. § 90.5015 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.5015.html)
Quote
(2) PRIVILEGE.—A professional journalist has a qualified privilege not to be a witness concerning, and not to disclose the information, including the identity of any source, that the professional journalist has obtained while actively gathering news. This privilege applies only to information or eyewitness observations obtained within the normal scope of employment and does not apply to physical evidence, eyewitness observations, or visual or audio recording of crimes. A party seeking to overcome this privilege must make a clear and specific showing that:
(a) The information is relevant and material to unresolved issues that have been raised in the proceeding for which the information is sought;
(b) The information cannot be obtained from alternative sources; and
(c) A compelling interest exists for requiring disclosure of the information.

It looks like O'Mara needs to show 'The information cannot be obtained from alternative sources' before asking to subpoena anything from Gutman.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 17, 2013, 10:53:35 PM
NoMatter, Do you have a link to the full witness list?  All of that is on the old computer...the one with the issues...  TIA if you do and TFT if you don't.  DFH
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 09:49:13 AM
NoMatter, Do you have a link to the full witness list? 

I've never seen an official, up to date list of all the witnesses.

DiwataMan has a 'work in progress' list. (http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/witness-list-civilians/) It says 'civilians', but it includes a number of police officers and other government employees.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 10:23:27 AM
O'Mara is filing a motion to subpoena everything ABC has on W-8.

Hearing on 2/5.

GZLegal (http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/82-motion-for-subpoena-duces-tecum-to-american-broadcasting-company-abc)

Motion (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/motion_for_sub_to_abc.pdf)

Notice of Hearing (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/notice_of_hearing.pdf)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 10:32:37 AM
From paragraph 4 of the ABC motion: (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/motion_for_sub_to_abc.pdf)

Quote
ABC News was involved, by Mr. Crump, in the audio taping of this significant state witness, and knew or should have known that the audiotape would not be protected by any journalist privilege.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 18, 2013, 10:52:42 AM
I wonder why they waited until now?  I assume they knew of Gutmans claim to have the tape and to be the only one that had a tape of a particular conversation.  I guess it could be because they just finally got Crumps tapes from the state and that some statements attributed to Dee Dee by various individuals in interviews are not on those tapes (not discernible or not there).
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 18, 2013, 12:25:02 PM
O'Mara is filing a motion to subpoena everything ABC has on W-8.

Hearing on 2/5.

GZLegal (http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/82-motion-for-subpoena-duces-tecum-to-american-broadcasting-company-abc)

Motion (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/motion_for_sub_to_abc.pdf)

Notice of Hearing (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/notice_of_hearing.pdf)

DiwataMan must be over the moon...   :D
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 18, 2013, 02:17:59 PM
I'll be interested to see if the state opposes the motion for a subpoena. I can't think of any valid reason they would.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 18, 2013, 03:03:42 PM
DiwataMan must be over the moon...   :D

And it will be on Martin's birthday.  That should get the interwebs all a-twitter.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 03:56:22 PM
I'll be interested to see if the state opposes the motion for a subpoena. I can't think of any valid reason they would.

Yes, that is interesting. ABC might claim privilege, but that's for them to assert, not the state to do it for them.

I thought O'Mara would argue that the conditions for setting aside journalist privilege had been met. Instead, he asserted that privilege could never be expected to apply to Gutman's recording of the Crump interview. I'm curious to see what his argument will be.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 18, 2013, 10:38:25 PM
Yes, that is interesting. ABC might claim privilege, but that's for them to assert, not the state to do it for them.

I thought O'Mara would argue that the conditions for setting aside journalist privilege had been met. Instead, he asserted that privilege could never be expected to apply to Gutman's recording of the Crump interview. I'm curious to see what his argument will be.

I was surprised O'Mara said there was no privilege, but if there is a privilege, I think under State v. Davis (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16880123688391410447&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 720 So. 2d 220 (1998) it would be overcome by the requirements of the 6th Amendment and due process.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 22, 2013, 12:56:47 PM
How much about the case was in the media by the time DeeDee was first interviewed?  For example, was it known that there was a covered "mail thingy" where residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes picked up their mail?  Is there anything she knew that could not have been picked up from watching TV?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 22, 2013, 01:03:23 PM
How much about the case was in the media by the time DeeDee was first interviewed?  For example, was it known that there was a covered "mail thingy" where residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes picked up their mail?  Is there anything she knew that could not have been picked up from watching TV?

By Crump?  I don't think there was much in the media before she talked to Crump.  I don't recall the exact date we first heard the NEN recording or the 911 tapes, but I believe it was between the time she talked to Crump/Gutman and the BDLR depo.

Just went back and looked it up.  The NEN and 911 tapes were released to the public on 3/17 which I believe was 2 days before the taped Crump interview.  It coincides with the supposed date that Tracey found out about the calls and the girl TM was talking to.  A cynical person such as myself might think it was Crumps plan to delay having Dee Dee come forward until they had some information that could be used to help form her statement and that the 3/17 release of these tapes is what they were waiting for.  I recall, they (Martins/Crump) were the ones pleading for the calls to be released to the public. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 22, 2013, 01:39:06 PM
I recall, they (Martins/Crump) were the ones pleading for the calls to be released to the public.

More than just pleading -- going to court.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 22, 2013, 01:52:56 PM
How much about the case was in the media by the time DeeDee was first interviewed?  For example, was it known that there was a covered "mail thingy" where residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes picked up their mail?

The sheltering from the rain part of the Crump interview is very bad audio even in the most recent version, but it seems Dee Dee said 'apartment building'. The 'mail thing' is first heard of, from Dee Dee, in the 4/2 SAO interview.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 22, 2013, 02:38:20 PM
Huffington Post, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1340358.html) First Posted: 03/12/2012 Updated: 03/13/2012

Quote
Benjamin Crump, the Martin family’s attorney, filed a public records lawsuit last week seeking the 911 recordings for the night of the shooting. Crump said people with access to the tapes told him Zimmerman made a comment about Martin’s race during the call and said he had no intention of letting the youth get away because, “they always get away.”

Crump was openly claiming, and demonstrating, access to inside information before the recordings were released, as early as 3/13.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 22, 2013, 06:23:33 PM
Huffington Post, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1340358.html) First Posted: 03/12/2012 Updated: 03/13/2012

Crump was openly claiming, and demonstrating, access to inside information before the recordings were released, as early as 3/13.

I knew he had inside information. I didn't realize he admitted it so directly. I can't see any privilege that would prevent the defense from deposing him about the identity of those "people with access to the tapes."
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 22, 2013, 06:39:55 PM
Of course he did.  I think the leaks that Serino was referring to in his interview is in regards to this period of time.  Sgt. Arthur Barnes, Rebecca Villenova, and Trekelle Perkins.

Perkins is the one that got the anonymous phone call from W9 a couple of days after the shooting claiming that Zimmerman was a racist.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 25, 2013, 03:39:31 AM
Responding to post on another thread.

Motion is relative.  I would ask her how she knows Trayvon wasn't moving back towards the man instead of the opposite. 

Scenario:

When Martin told Dee Dee he was 'right by his father's house', he had actually just reached the corner of the building. Instead of continuing toward BG's back door, Martin went through the gap between the buildings to RVC.

Martin went north on RVC until he was close to the cut-through. He hid behind a parked car, facing south. In the reflective surface of another vehicle, he saw Zimmerman arrive on RVC. He told Dee Dee the mysterious man was 'following' him and 'behind' him.

For some reason, Martin neglected to reassure Dee Dee that he was safely in hiding. He also didn't mention that Zimmerman was still talking on his phone. 

As Zimmerman began tapping his flashlight (2:42 on the NEN call), Martin and Dee Dee bickered about whether Martin would run. Dee Dee thought Martin was 'out of breath'.

Zimmerman tapped the flashlight for almost a minute before stopping (3:35). He talked to the dispatcher for another half a minute before hanging up (4:05).

Zimmerman put the phone away, got out his keychain flashlight, and tried it out. He found it less than satisfactory, and decided to give the primary flashlight another try. He stood on RVC and tapped the flashlight for another half a minute or so. Finally he gave up and settled for the keychain flashlight.

As Zimmerman started walking back through the cut-through, Martin emerged from hiding and stealthily followed. His sneakers were living up to their name. (I hope that ninja training is documented on his social media.)

Martin didn't tell Dee Dee that he was following Zimmerman. She still thought Zimmerman was following Martin.

Zimmerman was walking cautiously with his little flashlight. Martin gained on him, and gave Dee Dee a progress report by saying 'The guy is getting close to me.' Zimmerman didn't hear. Maybe Martin was using a high-pitched voice that only teenagers can hear.

About two minutes had passed since Dee Dee first observed that Martin was 'out of breath'. She didn't mention this 'couple of minutes' to de la Rionda. She glossed over it in passing from one sentence to the next.

Martin and Dee Dee again bickered over Martin refusing to run. Martin didn't explain that he didn't need to run because Zimmerman was walking slowly and would soon be overtaken. Dee Dee concluded that Martin was tired, because he was breathing hard.

Martin gave Dee Dee another progress report, saying 'The guy is getting real close to me.' Then was shouting, and pushing/bumping, and something about headphones, and grass.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 25, 2013, 08:49:41 AM
Well maybe.  Are you assuming that Martin decided to head over to RVC even before he could see Zimmerman on the cut through, heading there?  I don't see why.  I still think it more likely that Martin could see Zimmerman passing along the T since there were south facing houses along the top of the T with some windows lit.  In order to do some mischief, my guess is he would want to remain in the darker area between the two rows of houses where detecting him would be harder.  He might have figured Zimmerman would head back the way he came after not seeing Martin on RVC.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 25, 2013, 08:54:17 AM
Its a plausible scenario.  A couple of points I think are probably out of sequence or incorrect.

"When Martin told Dee Dee he was 'right by his father's house', he had actually just reached the corner of the building."

Dee Dee told TM to run to his dad's and Dee Dee relates him confirming this by saying he was going to "run from the back because its more easier".  I think most will accept a translation that this meant TM was going to run to the back of his dads house.  TM then ran far enough to be out of breath and after he stopped running and lost GZ, he made the comment about being by his fathers house.  Given this sequence of statements, I find it most likely that he actually was right by BG's place and not at the corner of the T.  Also GZ describes TM starting to run/skip from about the location of the T.  Unless GZ is lying about where TM was at this time.

"He told Dee Dee the mysterious man was 'following' him and 'behind' him."

Dee Dee relaying this seems to be very near the end of her call as she relays GZ following TM a couple of minutes after he stopped running.  There doesn't seem to be any break in her account of GZ being behind him, TM talking low and GZ getting closer.  IT could be she is out of sequence when this happens, but if we use her description, she has these statements occurring much later than attributed in this theory.

"Martin gave Dee Dee another progress report, saying 'The guy is getting real close to me.' Then was shouting, and pushing/bumping, and something about headphones, and grass."

Dee Dee never offered that GZ or TM did any shouting.  She said GZ spoke in a deep angry old voice.  Dee Dee says that she was shouting at TM to run and screaming at him asking what was happening, but she says she just heard GZ say "what are you doing around here".  When people shout, their voice gets higher pitched, not deeper.  BDLR then asks her if she heard any screaming and she said no (did hear a little bit of "get off" that she "couldn't know was Trayvon").  Later he asks her questions about the voice again and she said it was a tired, angry, low voice, then BDLR asked if it was "louder" and she agrees to the leading question.  BDLR knows there are witness statements of a louder more dominant voice screaming and Dee Dee wasn't giving it to her so he had to lead her into agreeing to one of his statements.

Again, I think your theory is plausible, but you'd have to disregard most of what Dee Dee says.  It wouldn't take much to convince me to do just that.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 25, 2013, 12:07:43 PM
I think most will accept a translation that this meant TM was going to run to the back of his dads house. 

That is not my experience.

My experience is that most people don't an express an opinion on the matter, and those who do have diverse opinions. I don't agree that there is a consensus.

I don't think your suggestion is at all plausible. I don't buy that the question of whether Martin was going to enter the house by the front or the back door was a topic of discussion. Dee Dee just wanted Martin to be safe. Why should she care which of two doors he used?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 25, 2013, 12:19:37 PM
Given this sequence of statements, I find it most likely that he actually was right by BG's place and not at the corner of the T. 

I should have said 'the corner of Brandy Green's building'. I had just mentioned Dee Dee's allusion to 'his father's house', so I thought it would be clear that 'the building' meant the building that included BG's townhouse.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 25, 2013, 12:37:19 PM
That is not my experience.

My experience is that most people don't an express an opinion on the matter, and those who do have diverse opinions. I don't agree that there is a consensus.

I don't think your suggestion is at all plausible. I don't buy that the question of whether Martin was going to enter the house by the front or the back door was a topic of discussion. Dee Dee just wanted Martin to be safe. Why should she care which of two doors he used?

I've never heard anyone express that Dee Dee telling TM to run to his dad's house and TM responding by saying he is "going to run from the back because its mo' easier" mean anything other than TM was planning to run to the back of BG's place.  What other meaning would you suggest? 

 I guess whether he got directly behind BG's place has been debated, but the statement of being "right by his fathers house" after running seems to indicate thats where he ended up.

I never said Dee Dee told him which door to use or cared.  TM is the one that suggests where he is going to run. 

"I should have said 'the corner of Brandy Green's building'. I had just mentioned Dee Dee's allusion to 'his father's house', so I thought it would be clear that 'the building' meant the building that included BG's townhouse."

I guess my confusion was that I had always heard you say that you felt TM ran around the corner and ducked out of site and that satisfied being right by his fathers house.  I assumed this new theory meant you felt he ran a little further south to the end of the first set of buildings and to RVC.  If I understand this clarification, you now suggest he ran to the end of BG's building quite a bit further south and that "started walking back again" does mean that he started walking back towards GZ, not just walking around or continuing in a direction towards home?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 25, 2013, 01:00:12 PM
A couple of other questions occurred to me.  GZ's call with the dispatcher ended around 7:13:40.  The presumed time of the arguing starting is roughly 7:15:30 or maybe a little later.  I'm not sure I'd buy that TM stealthily followed GZ along the top of the 'T' for nearly 2 minutes waiting to ask him why he was following him, or ask if GZ had a problem with him according to GZ's recollection. 

Also, one of the witness (W2) said she saw shadows go south towards the 'T' from the back of her place.  She's pretty unclear on how many individuals there might have been or what they were wearing, but hasn't swayed on shadows heading south from her place.  I could see this witness being mostly discredited since the change in her statements is pretty drastic, but assuming she did at least see shadows going from S to N, it doesn't fit with TM following behind GZ along the top of the 'T' until he confronts him.  Her story seems to fit better with GZ's account of TM coming at him from the left and behind which is the general direction of W1/W2's place.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 25, 2013, 01:23:04 PM
I've never heard anyone express that Dee Dee telling TM to run to his dad's house and TM responding by saying he is "going to run from the back because its mo' easier" mean anything other than TM was planning to run to the back of BG's place.  What other meaning would you suggest? 

I wouldn't suggest another meaning.

My view is that 'from the back' is an expression in Dee Dee's dialect. The best, if not only, way to discern its meaning is to ask someone who is familiar with the dialect or related ones. Sooner or later, I hope, such a person will turn up, or someone will ask Dee Dee herself. Meanwhile, I'm not speculating on the matter. There's lots of other stuff to speculate about.

Mary2012, who stopped posting a long time ago, thought that 'the back' was the backyard or 'dogwalk' area, and that 'ran from the back' meant literally that Martin was in that area and ran to some other place. I had some long discussions with her. Later I'll take the time to find some links.

I've also seen the suggestion that 'the back' meant the back of Zimmerman's truck.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 25, 2013, 01:53:56 PM
The back of his truck wouldn't make a lot of sense unless GZ was driving backwards while following TM (shortly before he ran, Dee Dee said GZ was following behind TM in his car).

IF TM was already in the "back area" when he made that statement (down the dog walk path between the buildings), how could he have been in GZ's site if GZ was sitting in his truck?  IS it reasonable to think he would have called the top of the T the back?  And how would the comments "because its mo easier" fit into that theory?

Surely there will always be some level of speculation since we don't have video evidence, but Dee Dee tells him to run to his dads house and TM's response is that he's going to run from the back because its easier.  IT certainly seems by far the most logical explanation to that exchange is that TM planned to run towards the back of BG's place which is what GZ testifies to (at least heading in that direction).  Doesn't seem to me like their should be much debate on where TM planned to run based on the available evidence and that getting right by his fathers house seems to confirm that he ended up in that general area.  Where he went from there to be a reasonable point of contention since we have no idea other than he "started walking back again".
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 25, 2013, 02:02:16 PM
The back of his truck wouldn't make a lot of sense

The issue wasn't whether there are other suggestions that make sense. It was whether there are other suggestions, period.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 25, 2013, 02:08:06 PM
  Doesn't seem to me like their should be much debate on where TM planned to run

That is a different question than what Dee Dee meant by 'from the back'.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on January 25, 2013, 03:00:36 PM
First of all, even if you find Dee Dee's account credible; she wasn't at the location.
Second of all, GZ's story would seem to indicate that TM came out of a yard.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 25, 2013, 04:25:24 PM
IF TM was already in the "back area" when he made that statement (down the dog walk path between the buildings), how could he have been in GZ's site if GZ was sitting in his truck?  IS it reasonable to think he would have called the top of the T the back?  And how would the comments "because its mo easier" fit into that theory?

Too bad Mary2012 isn't around any more. You could discuss it with her.

Here are three of her posts. One was a response to one of yours.

6/8 (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/5/27/41053/5361/204#204)

7/13 (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2057.msg96456.html#msg96456)

7/25 (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2103.msg98557.html#msg98557)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 25, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
I still think it more likely that Martin could see Zimmerman passing along the T since there were south facing houses along the top of the T with some windows lit.

On the ground floor?

The only evidence I know of for a window lit in those units is W-18, and she was in her bedroom on the second floor.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 25, 2013, 06:39:35 PM
Looking at my beloved NY Times interactive diagrams of the area, the cut through area is quite wide enough for light to leak into it from TTL and RVC.  I would be surprised if it wasn't better illuminated than the dog path between the houses.  The houses across from each other along the dog path seem to be almost half the distance apart as are houses opposite each other on the cut through so building shadows would also make the former darker than the latter.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 25, 2013, 07:41:30 PM

Also, one of the witness (W2) said she saw shadows go south towards the 'T' from the back of her place.  She's pretty unclear on how many individuals there might have been or what they were wearing, but hasn't swayed on shadows heading south from her place.  I could see this witness being mostly discredited since the change in her statements is pretty drastic, but assuming she did at least see shadows going from S to N, it doesn't fit with TM following behind GZ along the top of the 'T' until he confronts him.

W-2 didn't say 'shadows' until her 3/26 SAO interview. (29/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)). As with most of the SAO interviews, we have the summary, not a recording. The summary doesn't say a recording was made.

The SAO interview is her latest, AFAIK. She hasn't had a chance to 'sway.'

According to the summary, she said the shadows were running from left to right, which would be south to north.

The SAO summary also says that W-2 said she saw whatever she saw from her own bedroom. In her FDLE interview it was her sister's bedroom.

In her first statement to Serino she said she saw a chase from the kitchen window, and a fistfight looking out the sliding door. Later she told Serino she only saw the chase as she glanced out her bedroom window. They both seemed to have forgotten the fistfight.

Audio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnzKIvvCNxA) of W-2 interviews.

Quote
Her story seems to fit better with GZ's account of TM coming at him from the left and behind which is the general direction of W1/W2's place.

W-1/W-2 are in the second unit.

In the reenactment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) Sgt. Smith stood on the sidewalk to mark the approximate direction of Martin's approach (7:35-54). It was in the direction of the fence separating the yards of the first and second units.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 26, 2013, 02:44:12 AM
Its a plausible scenario.

Well maybe.

I don't think it's plausible, or even maybe plausible.

I am surprised by these reactions. I didn't think I was being subtle. I was actually worried that the sarcasm was excessive.

Quote
Martin gained on him, and gave Dee Dee a progress report by saying 'The guy is getting close to me.' Zimmerman didn't hear. Maybe Martin was using a high-pitched voice that only teenagers can hear.

Quote
As Zimmerman started walking back through the cut-through, Martin emerged from hiding and stealthily followed. His sneakers were living up to their name. (I hope that ninja training is documented on his social media.)

The scenario was an exercise, and a reductio.

I don't have much time right now, so I'll leave it there for now.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 26, 2013, 08:13:11 AM

A post (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/05/minute-by-minute-timeline-of-trayvon-martins-death/) by Susan Simpson on LL2 came up (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2166.msg105595.html#msg105595) in a phone record discussion. It's interesting for another reason.

The post is dated 4/5/12, three  days after Dee Dee was interviewed by de la Rionda. It mentions the mail shade as the place Martin sheltered from the rain.

Some time ago, I looked around blogs that followed the Zimmerman case, trying to find some mention of this before the April SAO interview. Too bad I forgot that LL2 was such a blog.

I didn't find anything. So, for the moment, I can say this is the earliest such blog post known to me. I looked for anything earlier at LL2, but this seems to be their very first post on the Zimmerman case.

The post has three allustions to the mail shade, two in the text, one as a legend for an illustrating map. The map legend is first on the page, so I will quote it first, then the two passages.

Map legend:
Quote
Awning where Trayvon took shelter from rain, prior to start of Zimmerman's call to police; location of mailboxes

Quote
According to DeeDee, it begins to rain, and he takes shelter at one of the buildings in the townhouse complex, while the two continue to chat. The referenced building is possibly the awning marked in purple on the above image.

Quote
7:12:44pm:

    Dispatcher: “Alright, where are you going to meet with [police] at?”
    Zimmerman: “Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck.”

I’m unclear where the mailboxes Zimmerman refers to are, but it appears from Google street view that they could be in the awning that Trayvon’s girlfriend says he took shelter in from the rain. If so, however, it’s hard to understand why police would “make a left and then go past the mailboxes.” But it makes more sense than anything else I can find, so it’s possible Zimmerman just misspoke again.

Two of the references indicate unequivocally that the mail shade is the place in question. The other hedges with 'possibly'.

There is no discussion of how Susan Simpson knows this, or why she believes or suspects it.

I've taken a screen capture of the post.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 26, 2013, 09:14:12 AM
Too bad Mary2012 isn't around any more. You could discuss it with her.

Here are three of her posts. One was a response to one of yours.

6/8 (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/5/27/41053/5361/204#204)

7/13 (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2057.msg96456.html#msg96456)

7/25 (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2103.msg98557.html#msg98557)

Her posts make no more sense now than they did then, unless you assume Dee Dee was wrong about the order of everything she said.  Mary suggests the "from the back" and "because its more easier" comes after GZ was out of his vehicle following TM.  Dee Dee and GZ both disagree.

"The issue wasn't whether there are other suggestions that make sense. It was whether there are other suggestions, period."

I could suggest that TM wrestled the gun away from GZ and shot himself. It would be insane to bother discussing it because it doesn't fit the evidence. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 26, 2013, 09:49:46 AM
Looking at my beloved NY Times interactive diagrams of the area, the cut through area is quite wide enough for light to leak into it from TTL and RVC.  I would be surprised if it wasn't better illuminated than the dog path between the houses.  The houses across from each other along the dog path seem to be almost half the distance apart as are houses opposite each other on the cut through so building shadows would also make the former darker than the latter.

Now I am not sure about the distance comparison I made from the NY Times diagrams (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html?ref=us).  I just learned of this set of pictures (http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/q0XObiGugcN/Community+Sanford+Florida+Awaits+Trayvon+Martin/browse) where the distances seem to be about the same.  Unfortunately neither has a scale.  I still think that the area around where the two paths meet in a T was somewhat better illuminated than the dog path since the former would only get shadows from the houses to the north and possibly light from RVC and TTL.  The point again is that I think Martin could have spotted Zimmerman on the cut through but Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to see Martin deeper down the dog path.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 26, 2013, 10:37:29 AM
The point again is that I think Martin could have spotted Zimmerman on the cut through but Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to see Martin deeper down the dog path.

I think there might be a 'sweet spot' where that would be true. It would be a matter of chance for Martin to be in it, and looking back, during the time Zimmerman passed. I don't think it would be as far from the T as Brandy Green's.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 26, 2013, 12:16:05 PM
A post (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/05/minute-by-minute-timeline-of-trayvon-martins-death/) by Susan Simpson on LL2 came up (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2166.msg105595.html#msg105595) in a phone record discussion. It's interesting for another reason.

The post is dated 4/5/12, three  days after Dee Dee was interviewed by de la Rionda. It mentions the mail shade as the place Martin sheltered from the rain.

* * *

There is no discussion of how Susan Simpson knows this, or why she believes or suspects it.

That is interesting. When I get a chance later, if nomatter_nevermind doesn't beat me to it, I'll check to see if what she said in previous comments is consistent with that, if not as specific.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on January 26, 2013, 01:08:06 PM
That is interesting. When I get a chance later, if nomatter_nevermind doesn't beat me to it, I'll check to see if what she said in previous comments is consistent with that, if not as specific.


If you mean what Susan said in previous comments, there aren't any, at least not about the Martin-Zimmerman case.

That April 5th timeline thread was the first time she posted about it, although you can see where she came back later with amendments as she learned more.

She's a T-Mobile customer.  She experimented by making some calls and noted the start and stop times and then looked at the billing statement and noticed what was in it were approximations, and suggested that the last call being marked on the bill as having started at 7:12 wasn't a guarantee that it started exactly to the second at that time and that the 4 minute duration meant it was over 3 minutes but not over 4, but no more precise than that.

I don't think she was trying to "sell" a particular version of what happened as much as trying to figure out what happened.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 26, 2013, 02:31:58 PM
She's a T-Mobile customer.  She experimented by making some calls and noted the start and stop times and then looked at the billing statement and noticed what was in it were approximations, and suggested that the last call being marked on the bill as having started at 7:12 wasn't a guarantee that it started exactly to the second at that time and that the 4 minute duration meant it was over 3 minutes but not over 4, but no more precise than that.

I don't think she was trying to "sell" a particular version of what happened as much as trying to figure out what happened.

We discussed her "experiments" on the cellphone records thread. Unfortunately, she didn't provide enough supporting details.

Yeah, she's a totally unbiased observer. Did I ever mention I'm Marie of Romania?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 26, 2013, 04:22:37 PM
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea;
And love is a thing that can never go wrong;
And I am Marie of Romania.

Dorothy Parker, Not So Deep as a Well (1937)

You really do make me laugh out loud.  I ((heart)) you for that.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 26, 2013, 07:15:42 PM
I'd figure I'd give my quick and dirty account of the DeeDee/Calls/Scenario thing. If this is too long just remove it and I'll blog it then I'll post a link instead.

I'd really like to see the phone logs but that just ain't going to happen so the best we can do is go off what we have and speculate.

We know Trayvon left the 711 at 6:29:32, though we can't say with absolute certainty how correct the time is on the video so we'll have to assume investigators checked it as they did with the clubhouse video time to check for a discrepancy. If we take everything starting with what DeeDee said and what the phone records Crump provided show, DeeDee says Trayvon was in a hurry to get back home for the NBA game, she also mentions other factors i.e. about to rain, get home to Chad.

So if Trayvon was in a hurry to get home and left the 711 at 6:29:32 he should have reached the Retreat at Twin Lakes easily in approximately ten minutes.

She says as he ran in the area,  the phone disconnected and they reconnected at the mailbox area. Assuming this is the Retreat at Twin Lakes and we look at the phone records it seems the obvious choice for reconnection is the 6:41 incoming call.

She then says as Trayvon left the mail area the phone disconnected again. They reconnect. If we go strictly off the next call in the phone records that would be 6:45 when they reconnected. But this is supposed to be the last call at 7:12 so clearly there is a big discrepancy in her story and the phone records.

Working our way backwards, Trayvon ran to the mailbox area at around the 6:54 call where they reconnected, this is excluding the one minute phone call at 7:04 that does not appear to be DeeDee. So this puts Trayvon hanging around the mailboxes for approximately eighteen minutes. If that is true then her claim about Trayvon rushing to get home is a lie because this means it took him approximately 24 minutes to get there, over twice as long as if he were actually in a hurry. Of course if this is also true and George saw Trayvon enter the Retreat at Twin Lakes this means he sat in his SUV watching Trayvon for that long as well. If George did not see Trayvon enter but hanging around the mailboxes then he failed to mention this and lied about seeing Trayvon enter. Clearly that's a problem.

So what are we to do?

DeeDee also mentions that Trayvon and her are having trouble keeping the phone connected after Trayvon had left the store, I think. Let's look at some what DeeDee says in her April 2 interview with Bernie de la Rionda.

BDLR:  OK, and as he was walking to the store, were you conversing with him?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR:  OK, you were talking to him.
Dee Dee:  Yeah.
BDLR:  How about when he got to the store? Did he talk to you about being at the store?
Dee Dee:  Yes.
BDLR:  OK, and did he talk to you once he left the store?
Dee Dee:  Yes.
BDLR:  And now was this a continuous phone call, or were there times when you would stop and then call each other back?
Dee Dee: Yeah, but the phone was actin’ up.

The way Bernie phrases this line of questioning and her last answer makes it difficult to ascertain just what Bernie is getting at and what she's answering. Is Bernie asking if it was one continuous call as he walked to the store to when he got back to the Retreat at Twin Lakes? Or is he asking if it was a continuous call from when he left the store? When DeeDee answers "yeah" to the last question is she answering that it was a continuous call, times when they would stop and then call each other back, or both? It can't be both because that's a self contradicting statement, it can't have been a continuous call at the same time they called each other back. If she's answering "yeah" to the fact there was times when they would stop and then call each other back then why follow that up with "but the phone was actin’ up"? Well was it a continuous phone call or wasn't it? Maybe it is both in a sense in that it was a continuous until he got to the store but after that the phone was acting up which possibly means disconnection.

This again would be a lie if he were in fact in a hurry and getting disconnected because there are no calls between 6:30 and 6:41 when Trayvon would have reached the Retreat at Twin Lakes.  If it is true that they had multiple connects and reconnects from 6:30 onward then which ones ought we use? Where do we start from? Since we can't see the call logs we can only speculate. But let's look to the phone records starting with the 5:09 call and just use the T-Mobile to T-Mobile ones.

5:09 Outgoing 81 minutes
6:30 Outgoing 13 minutes
6:41 Incoming 4 minutes
6:45 Outgoing 5 minutes
6:49 Incoming 4 minutes
6:53 Outgoing 1 minute
6:54 Outgoing 1 minute
6:54 Incoming 18 minutes
7:12 Incoming 4 minutes

There are seven possibilities here of when Trayvon could have entered the Retreat at Twin Lakes when DeeDee said he ran and they disconnected. She says two things that give us a bit more guidance. 1) that it started to rain and 2) she called him back.

If it is true that she called him back and they stayed connected then this gives us three options, 6:41, 6:49, 6:54, if it is also true that she called him back after he left the mailboxes.

The rain is another problem for DeeDee's account of events. It's somewhat difficult to ascertain but from the bank video marked "S Delivery Dr." it is clearly obvious that by 6:34 the ground is saturated and it is raining lightly. The video is motion activated and as such there are time gaps but from what can be seen it appears to be raining lightly continuously from 6:34, picks up at time goes on, peaking at approximately 6:58 where it remains a steady, medium rain to approximately 7:08 where it begins to slow and looks to have completely stopped at approximately 7:30. So it appears then it was raining the entire time Trayvon left the store.

I suppose one could say here that maybe Trayvon ran into the Retreat at Twin Lakes when the rain began to peak at its heaviest and left the mailbox are when it began to subside. That sure is a possibility but this again would have to discount DeeDee's testimony that Trayvon was rushing to get home when he left the store and add to her testimony that it was really raining the whole time. I also find it rather odd that he would be hanging around there for so long being so close to home, a 30 second run in the rain to get home after walking in the rain since who knows when certainly wouldn't be a big deal. I think that no matter how one tries to accounts for DeeDee's statements they will find themselves in some sort of conundrum with the evidence.

If it is true that the 7:12 call is DeeDee's, and given the time of George's call, I think the only thing that can be certain is Trayvon was in the Retreat at Twin Lakes at that time. Perhaps one scenario is that DeeDee is just confused about the disconnect times and at sometime during the 6:54 call Trayvon entered the Retreat at Twin Lakes, let's say approximately 7:08. Then him and DeeDee get disconnected and they reconnect at 7:12, after which he doesn't run exactly but does take off in some sort of other than walking fashion. Well if that is true then that matches George's account of events.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 26, 2013, 11:21:14 PM
Diwata, do you have a time stamp video for the clubhouse videos?  The East Pool cam is the one I am interested in.  I am interested in the rain patterns.  TIA
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 27, 2013, 03:20:08 AM
I don't think she was trying to "sell" a particular version of what happened as much as trying to figure out what happened.

Yeah, she's a totally unbiased observer.

Straw man and false dilemma.

Maybe there is a totally unbiased observer somewhere in the conversation. I wouldn't be wasting time trying to figure out who it is.

I don't understand unitron's point. If Simpson isn't 'trying to "sell" a particular version', then the results of her phone experiments have to be correct? How are Simpson's intentions on topic?

@DebFrmHell, thanks for the Dorothy Parker. I didn't recognize the allusion.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 27, 2013, 04:12:18 AM
Diwata, do you have a time stamp video for the clubhouse videos?  The East Pool cam is the one I am interested in.  I am interested in the rain patterns.  TIA

Well, sort of. It's kind of a long story, sorry.

It's been quite a long time since I looked at the actual timestamped video. The reason why is because the only way to view the actual timestamp is through the download from the State website;

https://sao4th.egnyte.com/

I have forgotten how now but from there you have to correctly download the file(s) to view the clubhouse tapes with the timestamp on it. You have to use the proprietary CCTV software they provide called NetVu ObserVer.

I no longer have access to that website but I have the software downloaded but something must have happened since, maybe because I moved files around or something, because I can't find the proper videos to load into it. You can't load the the avi files, rather the other video files that are of the correct format for the software.

The only other options are to look online for a copy someone may have uploaded or perhaps download the avi version which I uploaded here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb74bZhXDkI

and add a time stamp to it. I can do that part but it will take me some time to get to it.

From what I recall and what I have noted is the video timestamp begins at 6:30pm and ends at 7:15pm. Applying the eighteen minute discrepancy, the true time of the timestamp then would be 6:48pm to 7:33pm.

The clubhouse video records continuously unlike the 711 or bank videos which are motion activated. The frame rate from what I recall and have noted of the clubhouse video is one shot every 1.5 seconds.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on January 27, 2013, 06:41:23 AM
Yeah, she's a totally unbiased observer.


Straw man and false dilemma.

Maybe there is a totally unbiased observer somewhere in the conversation. I wouldn't be wasting time trying to figure out who it is.

I don't understand unitron's point. If Simpson isn't 'trying to "sell" a particular version', then the results of her phone experiments have to be correct? How are Simpson's intentions on topic?

@DebFrmHell, thanks for the Dorothy Parker. I didn't recognize the allusion.

I'm saying she doesn't have a motive to lie about the results of her experiment.

If you don't want to take her word for it, fine, spend your own money on a T-Mobile contract and try it yourself.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 27, 2013, 07:01:33 AM
Well, sort of. It's kind of a long story, sorry.

------------RESPECTFULLY SNIPPED----------------------------
The only other options are to look online for a copy someone may have uploaded or perhaps download the avi version which I uploaded here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb74bZhXDkI

and add a time stamp to it. I can do that part but it will take me some time to get to it.

From what I recall and what I have noted is the video timestamp begins at 6:30pm and ends at 7:15pm. Applying the eighteen minute discrepancy, the true time of the timestamp then would be 6:48pm to 7:33pm.

The clubhouse video records continuously unlike the 711 or bank videos which are motion activated. The frame rate from what I recall and have noted of the clubhouse video is one shot every 1.5 seconds.

Are you sure that there is really an 18 min discrepancy?  I have been watching the video and off and on you can see cars driving down TTL.  Since officers were starting to arrive at The Retreat after 7:17 you would think that some of those patrol cars would end up on TTL also instead of all of them turning onto RVC.  But maybe not.  I just don't see anything in the was of flashing emergency lights.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 27, 2013, 07:02:20 AM
I'm saying she doesn't have a motive to lie about the results of her experiment.

I was thinking more of error than misrepresentation, but both are possible.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 27, 2013, 07:16:16 AM
Since officers were starting to arrive at The Retreat after 7:17 you would think that some of those patrol cars would end up on TTL also instead of all of them turning onto RVC. 

The first person to report seeing an officer was W-3. She lives on TTL.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 27, 2013, 07:18:20 AM
I was thinking more of error than misrepresentation, but both are possible.

Do you have a shot of the officer by the grey truck on TTL in your repertoire?  I know it is in here but I can't find it.  I am banging my head on the table.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 27, 2013, 07:25:19 AM
Are you sure that there is really an 18 min discrepancy?  I have been watching the video and off and on you can see cars driving down TTL.  Since officers were starting to arrive at The Retreat after 7:17 you would think that some of those patrol cars would end up on TTL also instead of all of them turning onto RVC.  But maybe not.  I just don't see anything in the was of flashing emergency lights.

Page 87 of the 284pdf
"the video recording system was 18 minutes slow at the time of the shooting incident"
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 27, 2013, 08:21:32 AM
Page 87 of the 284pdf
"the video recording system was 18 minutes slow at the time of the shooting incident"

Thank you.  I don't recall ever reading that one.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 27, 2013, 08:42:48 AM
Do you have a shot of the officer by the grey truck on TTL in your repertoire? 

I don't have that.

I would suggest googling 'youtube fox 35 orlando' with 'trayvon' or 'zimmerman'.

You could try the station's own site, but as I recall I tried to find something there months ago and it had all been purged.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on January 27, 2013, 08:48:50 AM
I was thinking more of error than misrepresentation, but both are possible.

What error?

She thought she was a T-Mobile customer but she's actually with a different carrier?

She though she was looking at her own bill, but it was really someone else's?

She thought it was her phone she was using but it was her then fiance's? (They've since tied the knot)

It wasn't really a phone, it was a remote control or a calculator?

Is there something in Zimmerman's version that absolutely has to have Trayvon's last call begin at 7:12 on the dot and end precisely 4 minutes later?

Do you people all own T-Mobile stock and you can't tolerate any hint that the company might be less than perfect?

She's someone who's a non-Florida attorney with no direct connection to the case, and no more reason to be non-objective about it than a certain other non-Florida attorney with no direct connection to the case with whose name I'm sure you're familiar.

Actually, since her area of practice is civil litigation and not criminal defense work, perhaps even more objective than that other attorney.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 27, 2013, 09:12:57 AM
What's the other topic here? Susan Simpson? Her last post that I can tell was "Zimmerman’s Police Statements Are Not Consistent With Established Facts";

http://viewfromll2.com/2012/06/21/zimmermans-police-statements-are-not-consistent-with-established-facts/

After numerous bald assertions she babbles on about something with Twin Tress and such. After which we get the typical ridiculous high standard of comparing the non emergency call with his statements. And what a surprise we get "...instructed to return to his vehicle..." she says, huh? When did that happen? Oh yeah, in the typical made up story we hear ad nauseam from Crump et al.

I could go on and on but I don't feel like fisking that entire article.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 27, 2013, 09:52:48 AM
Do you have a shot of the officer by the grey truck on TTL in your repertoire?  I know it is in here but I can't find it.  I am banging my head on the table.

@0:39
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFOrPYD0Q0

Too bad they couldn't just pan to the right a bit ay? We might have seen George's truck.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 27, 2013, 10:17:38 AM
What error?

I don't know. She didn't show her work, so we can't check it for error.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 27, 2013, 10:35:03 AM
Is there something in Zimmerman's version that absolutely has to have Trayvon's last call begin at 7:12 on the dot and end precisely 4 minutes later?

Sorry, I'm just now catching on to how you have no idea what we are talking about.

I would suggest you read the relevant posts again, more carefully.

Or you could go on ranting absurdly. I'm easy.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 27, 2013, 10:39:34 AM
What's the other topic here? Susan Simpson? Her last post that I can tell was "Zimmerman’s Police Statements Are Not Consistent With Established Facts";

http://viewfromll2.com/2012/06/21/zimmermans-police-statements-are-not-consistent-with-established-facts/ (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/06/21/zimmermans-police-statements-are-not-consistent-with-established-facts/)

After numerous bald assertions she babbles on about something with Twin Tress and such. After which we get the typical ridiculous high standard of comparing the non emergency call with his statements. And what a surprise we get "...instructed to return to his vehicle..." she says, huh? When did that happen? Oh yeah, in the typical made up story we hear ad nauseam from Crump et al.

I could go on and on but I don't feel like fisking that entire article.

I don't think Susan has opined on this case for about 6 months.  Maybe the article (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/08/13/why-i-dont-write-about-trayvon-martin/) her then fiancee wrote in August has something to do with it.  Just about everybody who writes about this case falls into one of the following classes:

1. Those who think Zimmerman is guilty of Murder2 or worse and only racists think otherwise - Leatherman, most of the HuffPo posters, etc.

2. Those who say Zimmerman is probably not legally guilty beyond of reasonable doubt of anything but was an incompetent neighborhood watchman and lied about the details of his actions that evening in order to make himself look better.  It is possible that he is factually guilty but we will never know.  I think Susan is a 2 as are a number of the posters here.

3. Those who find Zimmerman's actions Feb. 26, 2012 exemplary and think he hasn't told a lie since.  Getting out of the car and heading into the darkness was just what the dispatcher asked, etc.  They are very comfortable shopping in Walmart knowing that a George Zimmerman, carrying a concealed firearm, is there to protect them.  Obviously the CTH supports this point of view.

Unfortunately we 2s are a small minority in discussing the case online.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 27, 2013, 11:14:31 AM
I don't think Susan has opined on this case for about 6 months.  Maybe the article (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/08/13/why-i-dont-write-about-trayvon-martin/) her then fiancee wrote in August has something to do with it.  Just about everybody who writes about this case falls into one of the following classes:

1. Those who think Zimmerman is guilty of Murder2 or worse and only racists think otherwise - Leatherman, most of the HuffPo posters, etc.

2. Those who say Zimmerman is probably not legally guilty beyond of reasonable doubt of anything but was an incompetent neighborhood watchman and lied about the details of his actions that evening in order to make himself look better.  It is possible that he is factually guilty but we will never know.  I think Susan is a 2 as are a number of the posters here.

3. Those who find Zimmerman's actions Feb. 26, 2012 exemplary and think he hasn't told a lie since.  Getting out of the car and heading into the darkness was just what the dispatcher asked, etc.  They are very comfortable shopping in Walmart knowing that a George Zimmerman, carrying a concealed firearm, is there to protect them.  Obviously the CTH supports this point of view.

Unfortunately we 2s are a small minority in discussing the case online.

Well I only read that last one from her but once she took on the rhetoric of Crump I had no need for much else.

Your characterization of groups suffers from many the same problems as trying to classify much of anything. The biggest one being that such conceptualization, though helpful to the human mind, we often like to put things into little boxes, denies one's agency. Don't get me wrong, I myself often fall into group think, us/them, black/white, etc., it's a human thing after all, but one must be constantly aware of such things. Frankly I like to deal just on the individual level.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 27, 2013, 11:25:11 AM
I'm thinking the bias of Susan Simpson is barely on topic because it relates to interpreting the records of the phone calls of Dee Dee and Martin. Dichotomizing debaters should go to another thread IMO.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 27, 2013, 12:46:26 PM
@0:39
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFOrPYD0Q0

Too bad they couldn't just pan to the right a bit ay? We might have seen George's truck.

At 0.42 you can see flashing lights reflecting around that truck which makes me wonder why you can't see any of that from the pool video that goes until 7:30.  I hope you know what I mean.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on January 27, 2013, 12:47:21 PM
Straw man and false dilemma.

How is what I said a straw man? And what is the dilemma -- false or otherwise? My comment was a response to, "I don't think she was trying to 'sell' a particular version of what happened." I think Simpson is trying to sell a particular version of events. That doesn't mean I dismiss anything she says. Lot's of valuable information comes from people with strongly held points of view.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 27, 2013, 01:14:57 PM
Yeah, she's a totally unbiased observer.

Straw man and false dilemma.

How is what I said a straw man? And what is the dilemma -- false or otherwise? My comment was a response to, "I don't think she was trying to 'sell' a particular version of what happened."

'I don't think she was trying to "sell" a particular version of what happened', does not imply 'she's a totally unbiased observer.'

The dilemma is between trying to sell a particular version of what happened, and being a totally unbiased observer.

It is a false dilemma (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/fd.htm) because it is possible to do neither.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 27, 2013, 02:13:02 PM
At 0.42 you can see flashing lights reflecting around that truck which makes me wonder why you can't see any of that from the pool video that goes until 7:30.  I hope you know what I mean.

That would take me a while to explain but I'm glad we looked back at that video because I believe we can actually see George's truck. So I made this video real quick. Of course I can't say it is because the quality is so bad but I think it's likely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hzd3cquaZs
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 27, 2013, 03:38:13 PM
What error?

She thought she was a T-Mobile customer but she's actually with a different carrier?

She though she was looking at her own bill, but it was really someone else's?

She thought it was her phone she was using but it was her then fiance's? (They've since tied the knot)

It wasn't really a phone, it was a remote control or a calculator?

Is there something in Zimmerman's version that absolutely has to have Trayvon's last call begin at 7:12 on the dot and end precisely 4 minutes later?

Do you people all own T-Mobile stock and you can't tolerate any hint that the company might be less than perfect?

She's someone who's a non-Florida attorney with no direct connection to the case, and no more reason to be non-objective about it than a certain other non-Florida attorney with no direct connection to the case with whose name I'm sure you're familiar.

Actually, since her area of practice is civil litigation and not criminal defense work, perhaps even more objective than that other attorney.

No one believes that the call started precisely at 7:12 and ended precisely 4 minutes later.  I believe her when she said she experimented with her bill, but I believe her testing was incomplete.   She said based on her experiment she believed the call could be off anywhere from 0-59 seconds.  Even in her words, she wasn't sure that she had a complete picture.  I posted a link to a site discussing TMobile billing practices from 2009 (well before this case) and a user on there provided details of a call they said lasted 3 min 33 seconds, but they were billed for 5 minutes.  That is much more evidence than Susan provides and would be impossible to have happened if her theory were true.  I don't believe she was lying, I think her testing was incomplete.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 27, 2013, 09:42:38 PM
Well I only read that last one from her but once she took on the rhetoric of Crump I had no need for much else.

Your characterization of groups suffers from many the same problems as trying to classify much of anything. The biggest one being that such conceptualization, though helpful to the human mind, we often like to put things into little boxes, denies one's agency. Don't get me wrong, I myself often fall into group think, us/them, black/white, etc., it's a human thing after all, but one must be constantly aware of such things. Frankly I like to deal just on the individual level.

What Crump like rhetoric did she use?  I think she sounded more like Serino.  I think this posting (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/07/16/zimmerman-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-4939) shows she does fit into my type 2 characterization.  What disturbs me about most type 1 and 3s is that their views on the evidence seem to be a consequence of their political philosophy.  I almost fell out of my chair when I read what txantimedia (who did those nice transcripts of the Singleton and Serino interviews) wrote (https://www.txantimedia.com/?m=201211) after Obama's reelection.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 27, 2013, 10:17:18 PM
It's somewhat difficult to ascertain but from the bank video marked "S Delivery Dr." it is clearly obvious that by 6:34 the ground is saturated and it is raining lightly.

I think that's "5 Delivery Dr."

How can you tell that rain is falling? Those videos are too grainy for me to read a license plate. I'm skeptical of anyone claiming to discern raindrops.

The Delivery Dr. camera makes an abrupt jump, from dry pavement at 1:14:23 to wet at 6:34:59.

Just before 5:00 there is a vehicle at the ATM, operating windshield wipers on an intermittent setting.

At 5:40 there is a vehicle at the ATM with inactive windshield wipers.

At 6:36 Mark Osterman or his look-alike is at the ATM, with windshield wipers going steadily.

I've assumed that Delivery Dr. could have been wet from the earlier rain, making 6:36 the first time we can be sure of rain after 5 PM.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 27, 2013, 11:46:43 PM
Susan Simpson (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/07/16/zimmerman-open-thread/#comment-5068)
Quote
If the fight actually started “30 seconds” after the NEN call was ended, Trayvon did not have enough time to get home, unless he sprinted all the way back, touched the back porch, and then sprinted all the way back to the “T”.

I think this settles whether Susan Simpson is a go-to person on anything involving arithmetic.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 28, 2013, 12:50:11 AM
I think that's "5 Delivery Dr."

How can you tell that rain is falling? Those videos are too grainy for me to read a license plate. I'm skeptical of anyone claiming to discern raindrops.

The Delivery Dr. camera makes an abrupt jump, from dry pavement at 1:14:23 to wet at 6:34:59.

Just before 5:00 there is a vehicle at the ATM, operating windshield wipers on an intermittent setting.

At 5:40 there is a vehicle at the ATM with inactive windshield wipers.

At 6:36 Mark Osterman or his look-alike is at the ATM, with windshield wipers going steadily.

I've assumed that Delivery Dr. could have been wet from the earlier rain, making 6:36 the first time we can be sure of rain after 5 PM.

You have to put the video in an editor so you can scroll back and forth through it to get a better idea of what's going on. Below is an example I quickly put together for you. You can see the puddle form and dissipate a bit in the bank and clubhouse video. You can see drops hitting the puddles. And you can see rain passing by the lens more clearly in the clubhouse video. If we ever get more video perhaps we can be more certain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ErdtQD6bFI
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 28, 2013, 01:09:21 AM
Susan Simpson (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/07/16/zimmerman-open-thread/#comment-5068)
I think this settles whether Susan Simpson is a go-to person on anything involving arithmetic.

Well we all make mistakes and given the nature of this sort of thing there are bound to be numerous errors, the proper thing is to correct them as information is presented otherwise, unless one is full of hubris of course. Trayvon did not have enough time to get home? I think the evidence shows and most agree it was 3-4 minutes from the time Trayvon ran to when the two met. And Trayvon, jogging, skipping, lol, running, whatever, even from the clubhouse could have made it home in less than a minute.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 28, 2013, 01:22:32 AM
What Crump like rhetoric did she use?  I think she sounded more like Serino.  I think this posting (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/07/16/zimmerman-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-4939) shows she does fit into my type 2 characterization.  What disturbs me about most type 1 and 3s is that their views on the evidence seem to be a consequence of their political philosophy.  I almost fell out of my chair when I read what txantimedia (who did those nice transcripts of the Singleton and Serino interviews) wrote (https://www.txantimedia.com/?m=201211) after Obama's reelection.

Gee willikers, is this a deedee topic or a Susan topic? lol

It's in my post;

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg105689.html#msg105689

I don't know about types. I think it's a lot of things that influence people's view on the case itself, no one can be completely free from bias and completely objective. Also, this case also has always been more about the case, the facts of the case or the individuals involved anyway. One can try to separate themselves from that but doing so truncates one's understanding of how we got here and where we're going.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 28, 2013, 07:02:34 AM
What Crump like rhetoric did she use?  I think she sounded more like Serino.  I think this posting (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/07/16/zimmerman-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-4939) shows she does fit into my type 2 characterization.  What disturbs me about most type 1 and 3s is that their views on the evidence seem to be a consequence of their political philosophy.  I almost fell out of my chair when I read what txantimedia (who did those nice transcripts of the Singleton and Serino interviews) wrote (https://www.txantimedia.com/?m=201211) after Obama's reelection.

I'd say she is about a 1.5 on your scale.  She says everyone can accept that GZ is morally responsible for TM's death.  We don't know for sure how things went exactly that night, but to make a statement that everyone has to accept her version of what went down, tells me she's closer to camp 1.   She believes GZ is guilty of murder, just doubts whether it can be proven. 

Not exactly sure how it ties into Dee Dee other than she has to accept Dee Dee's statements not only as gospel, but that every possible interpretation of her words goes against GZ and in favor of TM.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 28, 2013, 07:39:22 AM
I think both txanitmedia and Susan Simpson are honest and wouldn't knowingly transmit bogus information in making a calculation or doing a transcription.  Yes, I know this is pretty much OT but this case is exceptional in that the connection between political viewpoint and evidence evaluation is so extreme and widespread in net postings that it deserves a mention.   I find truth and justice at odds with political and religious fanaticism.  The Talkleft main site and forum is the only oasis I know where this case is discussed with very little of it.  Thank you Jeralyn.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on January 28, 2013, 08:06:59 AM
Susan Simpson (http://viewfromll2.com/2012/07/16/zimmerman-open-thread/#comment-5068)
I think this settles whether Susan Simpson is a go-to person on anything involving arithmetic.

From the time Zimmerman says "bleep, he's running" until the end of the call is around 2 minutes, so if Zimmerman is correct about the fight starting 30 seconds after he hung up, that gives Martin about 2 and a half minutes to vanish from sight at the T, get all the way down to B.G.'s back door, and back up to the T.

I'm thinking he'd have to step pretty lively to get that round trip in in that amount of time.

The more likely explanation, of course, is that Zimmerman's estimate of it only having been 30 seconds was too short, especially since this would mean the fight went on for about 2 minutes before anyone called 911.

You may be underestimating Simpson's arithmetic abilities.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 28, 2013, 08:52:21 AM
From the time Zimmerman says "bleep, he's running" until the end of the call is around 2 minutes, so if Zimmerman is correct about the fight starting 30 seconds after he hung up, that gives Martin about 2 and a half minutes to vanish from sight at the T, get all the way down to B.G.'s back door, and back up to the T.

I'm thinking he'd have to step pretty lively to get that round trip in in that amount of time.

The more likely explanation, of course, is that Zimmerman's estimate of it only having been 30 seconds was too short, especially since this would mean the fight went on for about 2 minutes before anyone called 911.

You may be underestimating Simpson's arithmetic abilities.

Average walking pace is about 3 mph or roughly 90 yards per minute.   In 2.5 minutes, someone walking at a leisurely pace would cover 225 yards.  IIRC, the distance from the 'T' to BG's back porch is about 130 yards or 260 yards round trip.  TM would be able to cover that distance in 2.5 minutes without breaking a sweat (or being out of breath).   Does Dee Dee's narrative of what TM did during this time provide a reasonable timeline for TM making it "right by his fathers house" and returning to the 'T' in 2.5 minutes?

Was GZ off in his 30 second estimate?  I don't know, probably.  I tend to believe it was a bit longer than that.  I don't think he was standing on RVC when the call ended or I think he would have provided an address at that time.  I think he was somewhere along the top of the 'T'.  After hanging up, I think he walked back to RVC (either was his first trip there, or went there the first time to see if he could catch a glimpse of TM) to get an address.  I think he had the epiphany to get an address there just as he was hanging up with the dispatcher which is why his last words were to just have them call him and he can let him know where he is at.  After hanging up, he walked to RVC, got an address and started walking back towards his SUV.  I'd guess it probably took 60-90 seconds to get to RVC, get an address and get back to the 'T' where TM asks why he's following him.  Why did he get an address on RVC, then decide to walk back to his truck is a valid question.  I don't know if he considered hanging around there until cops arrived and it started raining harder which prompted a return to his SUV or maybe he figured that end unit was the nearest location to where he last saw TM and was as close to his vehicle as any other known address he had.  The cops didn't ask him about getting that address, so we don't really know.

FWIW, I think there are more than 3 categories of observers/commenters on this case.  I don't see #2 as provided previously as middle ground in this case given known evidence and we haven't seen the much of the defenses evidence yet.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 28, 2013, 01:24:22 PM
Does Dee Dee's narrative of what TM did during this time provide a reasonable timeline for TM making it "right by his fathers house" and returning to the 'T' in 2.5 minutes?

No.

I've made this point before, in answer to those who argue for this interpretation on the ground that the timeline doesn't work without it. The timeline doesn't work anyway. At least, that assumption is not sufficient by itself to make the timeline work.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 28, 2013, 02:06:46 PM
No.

I've made this point before, in answer to those who argue for this interpretation on the ground that the timeline doesn't work without it. The timeline doesn't work anyway. At least, that assumption is not sufficient by itself to make the timeline work.

I'm not sure I understand, unless you are saying that since it seems Dee Dee's last call wasn't connected until 7:12 or later, TM had more than 2.5 minutes to get home and back.   I assume you aren't saying that TM couldn't have run from the 'T" and walked back to the 'T" within a 2.5 minute window, or that there is evidence that GZ lied when he said TM took off out of site from the 'T'. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 28, 2013, 03:17:59 PM
I assume you aren't saying that TM couldn't have run from the 'T" and walked back to the 'T" within a 2.5 minute window

The opposite. If Martin ran home, then immediately turned and walked back to the T, he would get there too soon.

In the Crump interview, (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA3_red.mp3) Dee Dee said that Martin told her he would 'walk fast' after he became aware of Zimmerman behind him. I've estimated this would be at least 15 seconds before Martin spoke to Zimmerman, to allow for the dialogue between Martin and Dee Dee. That's very conservative, since it assumes no pauses in that conversation.

ABC has another version, (http://www.wtsp.com/news/florida/article/248600/19/Trayvon-Martin-timeline--) in which Martin was already 'walking fast' when he became aware of Zimmerman behind him. 
 
2:04-11
Quote
He was walking fast when he say, that this man behind him again. He come and say this dude look like he about to do something to him.

The timeline can't be saved, consistent with Dee Dee's story, by assuming Martin walked slowly the whole time on his way back to the T.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 28, 2013, 04:09:28 PM
Below is an example I quickly put together for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ErdtQD6bFI

Wow. That's a lot of work, just for me. Thanks.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 28, 2013, 05:21:05 PM
Then him and DeeDee get disconnected and they reconnect at 7:12, after which he doesn't run exactly but does take off in some sort of other than walking fashion. Well if that is true then that matches George's account of events.

I take it you mean the account Zimmerman gave on Hannity, which differs from all his earlier accounts, which differ among themselves.

As for Dee Dee saying Martin didn't run while Zimmerman was in the car, that's a widespread misconception. In the SAO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) interview, Dee Dee said that Martin told her 'this man is still watching him, like in a car, so he about to run from the back' (7:21-27). After a bit more dialogue: 'So, next I hear, he just running. And I could hear, that the wind blowing.' (7:40-45)

We still don't have an intelligible recording of that part of the Crump interview, but the narrative (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg101881.html#msg101881) Crump presented at the March 20 presser (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html) also has Martin running at that point in the story.

We have intelligible audio (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA3_red.mp3) of the part of the Crump interview in which Dee Dee said that Martin told her he would 'walk fast, from the back', after he became aware of Zimmerman behind him, presumably on foot. This isn't in the SAO version, in which Dee Dee at that point only has Martin say he won't run.
 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 28, 2013, 05:26:55 PM
Diwata, do you have a time stamp video for the clubhouse videos?  The East Pool cam is the one I am interested in.  I am interested in the rain patterns.  TIA

Here's one I have that's been sped up 4x.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcUO0t0TZfE
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 28, 2013, 05:41:11 PM
I take it you mean the account Zimmerman gave on Hannity, which differs from all his earlier accounts, which differ among themselves.

As for Dee Dee saying Martin didn't run while Zimmerman was in the car, that's a widespread misconception. In the SAO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) interview, Dee Dee said that Martin told her 'this man is still watching him, like in a car, so he about to run from the back' (7:21-27). After a bit more dialogue: 'So, next I hear, he just running. And I could hear, that the wind blowing.' (7:40-45)

We still don't have an intelligible recording of that part of the Crump interview, but the narrative (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg101881.html#msg101881) Crump presented at the March 20 presser (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html) also has Martin running at that point in the story.

We have intelligible audio (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA3_red.mp3) of the part of the Crump interview in which Dee Dee said that Martin told her he would 'walk fast, from the back', after he became aware of Zimmerman behind him, presumably on foot. This isn't in the SAO version, in which Dee Dee at that point only has Martin say he won't run.

Yes, I was kind of poking fun in an alluding type manner. I'm well aware of the discovery.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 28, 2013, 05:46:41 PM
I'm well aware of the discovery.

I know you are. But your statement didn't seem like a jest. It seemed to be a repetition of a common misconception.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 28, 2013, 05:55:18 PM
The opposite. If Martin ran home, then immediately turned and walked back to the T, he would get there too soon.
Depends.  As you pointed out earlier, GZ's description of what he did could mean he spent the last couple of minutes Of the NEN at the 'T' or as indicated in his walk through, he spent little time at the 'T" and spent most of the last couple of minutes out by RVC.  IF TM sprinted home dropped something off (we don't know this for a fact, but several people have indicated they felt TM had been on the porch that day/evening), then walked cautiously back towards the 'T', it would probably have taken him 90 - 120 seconds to get back to the 'T' from the time he ran away from it.  An average walking speed of 3 mph means covering roughly 90 yards per minute.  BG's is roughly 130 yards from the 'T', so average walking speed takes almost 90 seconds.  Add in sprinting time to get home and walking cautiously back, and you can get close to 2 minutes.  TM gets to the T and peeks around the corner and sees GZ and tells Dee Dee he sees him and seeing him out of the car confirms to TM that GZ is still following him.  TM knows GZ has to come back through the 'T' to get to his vehicle, so he waits near the 'T' talking quietly to Dee Dee and announces he's getting close as he emerges from the buildings along the 'T'.   TM then goes to confront GZ to see why he's following him.  Not saying this is how it went down, its but a possibility.

Quote
In the Crump interview, (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA3_red.mp3) Dee Dee said that Martin told her he would 'walk fast' after he became aware of Zimmerman behind him. I've estimated this would be at least 15 seconds before Martin spoke to Zimmerman, to allow for the dialogue between Martin and Dee Dee. That's very conservative, since it assumes no pauses in that conversation.

In this interview, Dee Dee places no time between TM losing GZ and GZ reacquiring him.  In the BDLR interview, this segment isn't mentioned and she uses the term "several minutes" in how much time passed between TM losing GZ until TM spots GZ again.  In this taped interview, Dee Dee has TM saying he was going to run from the back once, before he ran the first time and that he was going to walk fast from the back after he stopped running and was by his fathers house with GZ following him.  In the BDLR interview, she mentioned running from the back before running from GZ as he sat in his SUV., but then does bring up running from the back again as she said "he lost the guy ... and he ran from the back".  Its confusing that she uses the past tense to indicate he already ran from the back, but also says he ran from the back after he lost the guy.  I tend to think the second utterance of this was just a repeat and that he had already run from the back.  She does not have TM saying he was going to walk fast in the BDLR interview.

Frankly, I have no idea where TM was and when from Dee Dee's two accounts.  Its pretty clear from the GZ NEN call that he isn't walking or running or doesn't see TM from the time he gets to the 'T' to exclaim TM is gone until the NEN finishes. 

 
Quote
The timeline can't be saved, consistent with Dee Dee's story, by assuming Martin walked slowly the whole time on his way back to the T.

I guess I kind of agree with this because I don't see that Dee Dee has a consistent story as it relates to the NEN.  If you use just her BDLR interview, it could have taken TM 15-20 seconds to sprint home (25-30 to jog), another 15-20 seconds to drop off what he wants to leave there and then go walking back cautiously towards the 'T".  Those movements could easily have taken 2 minutes.  She then mentions time for TM spotting GZ following him as TM is talking quietly.  I think this is more likely a recognition that GZ was out of his truck still looking around for him and that TM was concealing his location. 

Then  of course you have the entire issue of Dee Dee's call connecting after 7:12 and TM running after this connection, yet the NEN shows TM running around 7:11:35.  IS the NEN time off?  Is Dee Dee lying/misremembering a significant detail?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 28, 2013, 06:11:14 PM
several people have indicated they felt TM had been on the porch that day/evening)

Tracy and Brandy made remarks about Martin sitting on the porch at some unspecified time.

Who else do you have in mind?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 28, 2013, 06:22:50 PM
I know you are. But your statement didn't seem like a jest. It seemed to be a repetition of a common misconception.

Hmm, maybe I 'll try to remember to add something that indicates the thoughts in my head as I write >:(

I wasn't aware that it was a common misconception about DeeDee. I kind of figured everyone, well everyone who looks at the details of the case anyway, knew she said Trayvon ran, was out of breath, etc. and that's what George said in the call and so on.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 28, 2013, 06:38:24 PM
Depends.  As you pointed out earlier, GZ's description of what he did could mean he spent the last couple of minutes Of the NEN at the 'T'

I didn't say that and I don't agree with it.

Zimmerman said he went straight through the T, and was on RVC by the time the dispatcher asked him if he wanted to meet the police. That's one of the most consistent parts of his story.

I'm not saying his recollection couldn't be wrong. But that is Zimmerman's 'description of what he did'.

Quote
he waits near the 'T' talking quietly to Dee Dee and announces he's getting close as he emerges from the buildings along the 'T'.   TM then goes to confront GZ to see why he's following him.  Not saying this is how it went down, its but a possibility.

Dee Dee said Martin told her twice that Zimmerman was getting closer. The second time, Dee Dee used the phrase 'real close'. I don't think this is a repetition. Considering the context, and her voice on the recording, I think she meant to say that there were too separate times in which Martin remarked on Zimmerman being closer, and that the second time he was even closer than on the first.

If Martin was waiting in the area Zimmerman indicated that he came from, then soon after Zimmerman became visible he would have passed Martin and be moving farther away.

If Martin chose the moment to approach Zimmerman, I think he would have said something to Dee Dee, like 'I'm going to go talk to the guy.' It would be rude of him not to, to so abruptly shift his attention from Dee Dee to Zimmerman, unless the encounter was forced on him.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 28, 2013, 06:56:01 PM
I wasn't aware that it was a common misconception about DeeDee.

There are a lot of people who have heard sound bites but haven't studied the chronology. Much of the ABC programming garbled the chronology, and some of that reporting confused even the more knowledgeable. That's why I wrote this post. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg101881.html#msg101881)

As soon as the Hannity video was out, there were people saying that Zimmerman's 'like skipping' must correspond to Dee Dee's 'he was gonna walk fast'. It was on the TalkLeft blog thread for the interview. I don't recall if it came up on the forum thread.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 28, 2013, 09:57:38 PM
I didn't say you said thats what happened.  I have always believed GZ spent a fair amount of time right around the doggie station.  You pointed out that GZ didn't specify any length of time he spent there, thus opening the idea to me that he only spent a few seconds at the 'T" before going to RVC.  GZ's walk through indicated that he spent some time at RVC talking to the dispatcher.  IF he did that, TM could have been walking back to the 'T" without seeing GZ or knowing that he was just around the corner. 

ITs difficult to match Dee Dee's BDLR interview with GZ's statements about being along the 'T' for the duration of the NEN and walking back towards his SUV after hanging up.  Dee Dee cannot dispute GZ on this point because she has no idea where TM is.  She does dispute his account that he didn't see TM until TM came up to him.  We can tell from the NEN that GZ wasn't running, though he could have been walking just about anywhere.  So I try to use other evidence.  I hear some apprehension if not a bit fear in GZ's voice as he said TM was coming towards his vehicle.  TM in his baggy jeans and hoodie looked much bigger than him.  I don't think based on that information, he was going to go looking for TM in the dark corners of the dog walk area especially with his flash light not working.  He wanted TM caught for sure, but given that he stayed in his vehicle until TM ran from sight, I think its clear he didn't want a face to face confrontation.   

I think Dee Dee's story is fabricated on this point.  I think if she believed someone chased after TM and assaulted him and found out killed him the next day, she would not have remained silent for 3+ weeks.    I don't believe there is a chance in heck that GZ could have moved fast enough to catch up to TM and force a confrontation that TM didn't want.  I think TM relays seeing GZ again and even possibly that GZ was getting closer to his position.  I don't think it was the result of GZ following TM and seeing that he was closing in on him.  I believe it was TM that went walking back away from his father's house voluntarily that put him in touch with GZ back at the 'T'.  I'm not sure it was his plan to confront GZ at that point, but I think finding GZ  seeing how short he was emboldened him to confront.  I think if BDLR had just asked Dee Dee questions and not led her to answers, she wouldn't have provided half the information she did.  She agreed to almost everything he led her into except the point about her screaming at TM at which point she got defensive.  ITs going to be very interesting to hear O'Mara's deposition of her.

As for the porch comments, neither BG or Tracy made mention of TM being on the porch prior to them going out for dinner.  Tracy doesn't mention seeing TM all that day.  BG's only mention was that when she got home all the boys were sleeping.  BG mentioned the next day in a news intereview that TM had walked to the store and came back.  He was sitting on the porch and the man killed him.   In her interview with investigators, she didn't make any mention of the porch.   She said her and Tracy were back at her place Sunday morning and all three boys were asleep,.  TM's cousin said they got up early and went to the 7-11 and he dropped TM off around 8:00-8:30 and he went to his own home.  Could be TM went back to sleep after getting up and going with his cousin to the 7-11 where he just sat in the car and BG just assumed the cousin was still there.  There is no mention to investigators of seeing TM the rest of the day.   Tracy makes no mention to investigators of seeing TM Sunday and relayed in his call to police Monday morning that the last time he saw TM was Saturday.  None of this is proof TM made it to the porch that night.  We do no he had time to make it there and as far as I know, BG hasn't offered any other explanation for her comments in that news interview.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 28, 2013, 10:05:17 PM
Here's one I have that's been sped up 4x.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcUO0t0TZfE

That is so much better!!!!  Thank you a thousand times over.  I am all kinds of fascinated by the things you can do.  For a conservative, you are the tops!  8-)  You, Obi-Wan and Chip.

Okay.  You can see cars going south on TTL.  There are a couple of them around the 7:07 mark.  As they go around the last bend near W11/20's TH you can see them pass if you are looking at the street lamp. (middle light)  There is a definite void as they pass behind it.

At 7:11:29 a vehicle goes down TTL but you don't see him pass behind the street lamp.  Could that be Zimmerman?

Seriously.  This needs it's own thread.  Perhaps in the evidence thread?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 29, 2013, 12:19:51 AM
BG mentioned the next day in a news interview that TM had walked to the store and came back.

She didn't say he came back. She said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w47eL_jTieI) 'He was on his way back home.' (1:12-25)   

Quote
as far as I know, BG hasn't offered any other explanation for her comments in that news interview.

As far as I know, no one has asked her.

Brandy slipped out of the spotlight early in the show. I don't think Tracy made another media appearance in company with her. I think this 4/2 Geraldo interview (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/geraldo/index.html#/v/1543560623001/what-really-happened-the-night-trayvon-martin-died/?playlist_id=86916) was the last such appearance by Brandy.

But I'm not really interested in arguing about the interpretation. We've been around that block. I just object to your misrepresenting what she said.

ETA: I almost forgot. You haven't answered my question.

To me, 'several' implies more than two. Are Tracy and Brandy the only ones you had in mind?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on January 29, 2013, 06:25:57 AM
That is so much better!!!!  Thank you a thousand times over.  I am all kinds of fascinated by the things you can do.  For a conservative, you are the tops!  8-)  You, Obi-Wan and Chip.

Okay.  You can see cars going south on TTL.  There are a couple of them around the 7:07 mark.  As they go around the last bend near W11/20's TH you can see them pass if you are looking at the street lamp. (middle light)  There is a definite void as they pass behind it.

At 7:11:29 a vehicle goes down TTL but you don't see him pass behind the street lamp.  Could that be Zimmerman?

Seriously.  This needs it's own thread.  Perhaps in the evidence thread?

YW. I would think it would need it's own thread considering it's not DeeDee rather CCTV evidence we are talking about. This particular clubhouse shot, among all the other videos of the clubhouse, has always been a topic of discussion around the nets. But let me say this while we are here.

nomatter_nevermind recently posted a link to a long 45 minute video in where they discuss this and other clubhouse video.
http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2161.msg105716.html#msg105716

In the video they believe that is George's truck. I once believed it to be as well for just the reason you mention "At 7:11:29 a vehicle goes down TTL but you don't see him pass behind the street lamp"

They also mention other video where one can see a vehicle pass the front of the clubhouse and it does look like a truck and the timing is very close.

The biggest problem in all of this will always be that we can't say definitively that is George's truck, the quality of the video is just too bad. Also I think it may be possible for a vehicle to pass the front of the clubhouse and even park without being seen on the camera. I also think it may be possible for a car to travel South then East down Twin Trees and not be seen if it stays on the North side of the street because of the blown out area. Of course I can't say with certainty without actually going there and conducting some tests.

In the end I think that no matter what one side or the other brings up regarding the video the other side can say the same to the other. The quality is just to bad to discern much of anything. Also, just how accurate was the time accounted for? Did the investigator merely look at his watch? Was it checked against NIST? If that's what they used? You get the idea. ;)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 29, 2013, 07:27:11 AM
She didn't say he came back. She said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w47eL_jTieI) 'He was on his way back home.' (1:12-25)   

She said he was just sitting on the porch and this man came and shot him.  Came back means just that came back from the store.  She didn't mention in any police interviews of seeing TM that day other than he was sleeping.  She was in Orlando the rest of the time TM was at her home.  The sitting on the porch comment could refer other times he visited and had sat out there.  In context of what she was talking about the day after the shooting, it appears she had reason to believe he had been there recently. 

Quote
But I'm not really interested in arguing about the interpretation. We've been around that block. I just object to your misrepresenting what she said.

ETA: I almost forgot. You haven't answered my question.

To me, 'several' implies more than two. Are Tracy and Brandy the only ones you had in mind?

Its a guess, we don't know for sure.  I don't use it as a statement of fact that we know for sure, but supporting evidence to Dee Dee's assertion that TM said he was right by his fathers house.  As for the several comment, you answered your own question by saying BG and Tracy.  To me, several means more than one if I don't know for sure that its only 2.  I know that at least BG and Tracy said it.  The only other people who would possibly know are Chad and Dee Dee.  Dee Dee didn't mention the porch specifically, just that TM was by his fathers house, but she wasn't asked specifically about the porch either.  Chad says TM never made it home, but also said he was in his front room playing video games and didn't hear anything (no cop cars, not emergency vehicles, no shooting, etc).  Chad hasn't been asked whether he thought TM might have been on the porch that day or that night. 

In many ways, we are taking part in an insane exercise.  We are trying to use the statement of a person who appeared to have no interest in coming forward, who didn't see anything that happened and who took part in a very poor interview by the prosecution.  Without even questioning her memory, perceptiveness or bias, its very difficult to get a clear picture of what occurred from the BDLR interview.  I'm not sure when she will be deposed by the defense and when that deposition will be available, but I hope his interview provides a better, more linear account of what she recalls from that night to get a better timeline to see how it compares to the NEN and witness testimony.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on January 29, 2013, 07:56:56 AM
Pardon me if this has been gone over previously.  Just where in the Florida hearsay rules, 90.8xx here (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0090/titl0090.htm&StatuteYear=2000&Title=-%3E2000-%3EChapter%2090), is DeeDee's account of what Trayvon said to her on the phone allowed to be presented as courtroom evidence?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on January 29, 2013, 08:39:34 AM
Good question.  I don't know.  I imagine the defense will try to contest most of her statements.  I have assumed the judge will allow most into evidence, only eliminating ones that attempt to draw a conclusion , ie, I know TM was tired and couldn't run.  She will be able to say he was breathing hard or talking low, but don't think she'd be able to offer an opinion as to how she thinks that affected his actions.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 29, 2013, 04:18:37 PM
She said he was just sitting on the porch and this man came and shot him.

She didn't say 'just' or 'came'.

She did say he was sitting on the porch and the man shot him, but not in the same sentence, as a reader might assume if they aren't reading critically enough.

Of course, you didn't actually say that she said them in the same sentence. If I said you did, I would be misrepresenting you in the same way you misrepresent Brandy and Tracy.

If I said Brandy said that Trayvon was sitting on her back patio the last time she saw him alive, I would be misrepresenting Brandy in the same way you do. 

Quote
Came back means just that came back from the store.

'He was on his way back home,' does not mean the same as 'he came back'. It does not imply he got there. In context, it implies he did not.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 29, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
Pardon me if this has been gone over previously.  Just where in the Florida hearsay rules, 90.8xx here (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0090/titl0090.htm&StatuteYear=2000&Title=-%3E2000-%3EChapter%2090), is DeeDee's account of what Trayvon said to her on the phone allowed to be presented as courtroom evidence?

90.803.1
Quote
SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.--A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

If the judge finds 90.803.1 doesn't apply, some of what she attributes to Martin might come in under 90.803.2 or 90.803.3.

90.803.2
Quote
EXCITED UTTERANCE.--A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

90.803.2
Quote
THEN-EXISTING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION.--

(a)  A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:

1.  Prove the declarant's state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.

2.  Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.

(b)  However, this subsection does not make admissible:

1.  An after-the-fact statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed, unless such statement relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant's will. 

Earlier discussion. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg101650.html#msg101650)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 29, 2013, 07:03:32 PM
She did say he was sitting on the porch and the man shot him,

Actually, she said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w47eL_jTieI) 'And this man killed him?' (1:12-25) She didn't say how he was killed. I shouldn't have done that from memory.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 13, 2013, 10:07:06 PM
W-1/W-2 are in the second unit.

In the reenactment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) Sgt. Smith stood on the sidewalk to mark the approximate direction of Martin's approach (7:35-54). It was in the direction of the fence separating the yards of the first and second units.

Sorry, this was wrong. W-1/W-2 are in the third unit from the north, 2841.

That means Martin's approach, as described by Zimmerman, came from nowhere near their residence.

I know this seems off-topic at this point, but it was part of a discussion about various interpretations of Dee Dee's statements and how they hold up to the evidence.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on February 14, 2013, 12:23:32 AM
I think 2841 was exactly what he was pointing to. If TM backtracked after getting to or almost to Brandy's, he could have gotten back up to 2841/2831, ducked behind the fence near the bushes and when GZ, after reaching RVC and walking back to his car, passed the T, yelled out to him and then walked up to him and hit him.

Quote
Zimmerman...When I got to ...I passed here,  I looked, I didn't see anything again and I was walking back to my truck and then when I got to right about here, (past the "T') he yelled from behind me to the side, he said, Yo, you got a problem, and I turned around and I said, no, I don't have a problem, man
Investigator...where was he at, about
Zimmerman...he was about there, but he was walking towards me   

(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/th_reinact300_zpsfbae8b68.jpg)

See these photos of 2841 and where he could have hid:

2841 RVC (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/2841bushes.jpg)

2841 screen (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/2841screenbig.jpg)

 shooting site  (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/site-of-shooting.jpg)


Down the T (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/110downT.jpg)

Disc63 (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/DSC_0063.jpg)


Disc61 (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/DSC_0061.jpg)


Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 14, 2013, 12:33:02 AM
I think 2841 was exactly what he was pointing to.

(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/th_reinact300_zpsfbae8b68.jpg)

I think you are neglecting that the camera was somewhat to the left of where Zimmerman was standing for this frame. Draw the line from Zimmerman to Sgt. Smith and extend it. It points to the end of the fence between 2861 and 2851.

ETA: Another point occurred to me when I was checking the witness addresses. 2851 RVC was unoccupied that night. When Martin entered the backyard area, it would have been the first darkened unit, unless the absent resident left a light on in the back. It would be a place Martin could hide, without being silhouetted against a lighted window, or risking attracting the attention of an occupant.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on February 14, 2013, 12:49:35 AM
Yes he could have been at 2851 which was dark, but it's still the same direction. I was questioning your comment that TM wasn't in the direction of 2841. According to GZ in the reenactment, he did come from that direction, and it makes sense because if TM had backtracked, that is the direction.

Here (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/site-of-shooting.jpg) is another photo
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 14, 2013, 01:58:19 AM
Yes he could have been at 2851 which was dark, but it's still the same direction.

The earlier comment of mine that I was correcting, was in the context of a discussion of the significance of W-2. In that context, it makes a big difference whether Martin was in front in the back yard of 2851 or 2841.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on February 14, 2013, 06:35:53 AM
I find "could have hidden" much less grating on the mind's ear than "could have hid", and the notion that he could have crouched down behind those bushes and then emerged silently and unscratched very difficult to accept.

Of course he could have been standing upright on the south side of one of those short white fence things.

That should have shielded him from the view of anyone looking south from the T.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on February 14, 2013, 07:37:58 AM
I find "could have hidden" much less grating on the mind's ear than "could have hid", and the notion that he could have crouched down behind those bushes and then emerged silently and unscratched very difficult to accept.

Of course he could have been standing upright on the south side of one of those short white fence things.

That should have shielded him from the view of anyone looking south from the T.

It was raining at the time and according to some, raining fairly hard which would have helped to mask any sounds.  TM was wearing long pants and two sweatshirts, so I don't find it that difficult to believe he could have walked through some bushes without getting scratched.  I do agree he could have emerged from behind a fence as easily as from the bushes. 

Another post mentioned TM walking up to GZ at the 'T'.  Its my belief he came up more quickly than that.  W2 mentions persons or shadows running from the direction of her place towards the 'T'.  GZ said he took a look down the 'T' and didn't see anything, then he heard TM coming toward him.  For TM to get from his location to GZ's, he would have had to been moving at a faster pace to intersect with GZ around the 'T'. 

As for speculation, I  don't think TM had made his mind up on what he was going to do until he saw how short GZ was.  I think if GZ was 6' or taller, TM would have remained hidden.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 14, 2013, 11:21:22 AM
Another post mentioned TM walking up to GZ at the 'T'.

Reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 7:28-43
Quote
Zimmerman: And then, when I got to right about here, he yelled, from behind me, to the side of me. He said, "Yo, you got a problem?" And I turned around, and I said "Naw, I don't have a problem, man."

Sgt. Smith: Where's he, where was he at, about?

Zimmerman: He was about there, but he was walking towards me.

leftwig
Quote
W2 mentions persons or shadows running from the direction of her place towards the 'T'.

W-2 said many things. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnzKIvvCNxA)

In her FDLE interview, she said she glanced out the window, saw a person, and thought she heard the person running toward her from the south.

According to the summary of her SAO interview (29/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)) she said that she saw an unspecified number of shadows running north. The summary doesn't say if she said they were running toward or away from her.

I don't know that she ever said she saw or heard anyone running northward away from her.

Here are two of the pictures Jeralyn has kindly provided.

2841 RVC (http://s311.beta.photobucket.com/user/TalkLeft/media/zimmerman/2841bushes.jpg.html)

Back Yards (http://s311.beta.photobucket.com/user/TalkLeft/media/zimmerman/site-of-shooting.jpg.html)

Note how the room that projects over the patio blocks the view from the southern upstairs window.

Note how small the northern upstairs window is.

At this point some people might ask which window W-2 said she looked out of. Those people don't know W-2.

If Martin came at Zimmerman from the direction Zimmerman indicated, I don't think he would be visible at all from the southern upstairs window of 2841. I don't think he would be visible from the northern upstairs window to someone who wasn't already looking out the window, with a deliberate effort to get a northward view. She would have to crane her head to the right and press her left cheek against the window. Even so, I don't think she would see Martin until he was nearly on Zimmerman, and then she would see Zimmerman too.

W-2 said that she only 'glanced' out the window.

The probable cause affidavit (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/04/trayvon-martin-shooting-death-affidavit-of-probable-cause-text-version.html) says Martin 'tried to run home'.

ABC (http://news92fm.com/232452/friend-recounts-final-call-with-trayvon-martin-before-his-death/) said Zimmerman was 'cornering Martin'.

People who credit such claims are ignoring the physical realities of the location. I believe that is true of your claims as well.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on February 14, 2013, 12:33:26 PM
I just realized these posts are in the Dee Dee thread. Please continue the discussion in an evidence thread so this one can remain about W8. Thanks. I'll see if I can move the ones already posted later.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on February 24, 2013, 02:45:33 AM
Where was it around here I recently saw that BDLR said that the young lady is 19?

Or better yet, where would I find some official recording of that fact, if it is one?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 24, 2013, 03:30:43 AM
In the recent hearing, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5GZVhgSyKrM) West said W-8 is 19, and was 18 when Crump first told the media that she was 16 (6:23).
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on February 24, 2013, 08:11:58 AM
Gutman was present for that interview as well as other interviews that apparently he conducted with her.  He maintained that she was 16.  I'm of the impression that he believed this not just because Crump said it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on February 24, 2013, 10:33:32 AM
Gutman was present for that interview as well as other interviews that apparently he conducted with her.  He maintained that she was 16.  I'm of the impression that he believed this not just because Crump said it.

Matt Gutman was with Crump.  The interview was over the phone.  That this is the only time he talked to her.   This is according to Crump.  Gutman said that they talked to her for days and that she was credible.  Was it for days after the teleconference or before?

I have a question.  If depositions are not to be made public, was the interview that BDLR did on 4/2/12 considered a sworn statement?  Making the August 2-3 interview in Jacksonville the actual deposition since we haven't seen anything else of it?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on February 24, 2013, 10:38:21 AM
Gutman was present for that interview as well as other interviews that apparently he conducted with her.  He maintained that she was 16.  I'm of the impression that he believed this not just because Crump said it.

As in, he believed it because the young lady said it?

Wouldn't that put the cat among the pigeons if she did, but it turned out that she wasn't?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on February 24, 2013, 01:14:06 PM
I have a question.  If depositions are not to be made public, was the interview that BDLR did on 4/2/12 considered a sworn statement?  Making the August 2-3 interview in Jacksonville the actual deposition since we haven't seen anything else of it?
I thought that it had previously been said somewhere that while the Crump interview was not under oath (as Crump has stated), the 4/2 BDLR interview was made under oath, with the swearing parts presumably redacted from the beginning of the tape, along with her name and other identifying info.

But Jeralyn has said that depos aren't made public, and the only way we hear any of the content is if they're used by one side or other in court, and thus those segments become part of the court record. This surprised and confused me in light of the public release of that BDLR interview.

Can the 4/2 BDLR interview be a sworn statement that somehow isn't officially a "deposition", and can thus be made public as part of the whole "trial by media" the prosecution is waging?

Since that interview was made nine days prior to the charging of GZ with 2nd degree murder, and since W8's claims became a tentpole of Corey's affidavit of probable cause, it seems like they'd need her to be under oath for that statement, but maybe not. IANAL.

Of course, it raises the question of what the August trip to Jacksonville was about. Have they ever determined W8 was even interviewed by anyone during that trip, much less deposed?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on February 24, 2013, 01:29:13 PM
Matt Gutman was with Crump.  The interview was over the phone.  That this is the only time he talked to her.

Does "he" refer to Crump or Gutman? If Crump, that is what Crump claimed (without saying whether any of his associates talked with her). If Gutman, Gutman says he talked to W8 several times, and one of the recordings he played is not from the Crump interview.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on February 24, 2013, 01:35:17 PM
But Jeralyn has said that depos aren't made public, and the only way we hear any of the content is if they're used by one side or other in court, and thus those segments become part of the court record. This surprised and confused me in light of the public release of that BDLR interview.

The BDLR interview was a sworn interview, not a deposition. It falls under the "written or recorded statement" provisions of the discovery rules, and must be turned over. The difference is that in a deposition both sides are present, so there's no need to give it to the other side as part of discovery.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 24, 2013, 01:56:36 PM
If depositions are not to be made public, was the interview that BDLR did on 4/2/12 considered a sworn statement?

I thought that it had previously been said somewhere that while the Crump interview was not under oath (as Crump has stated), the 4/2 BDLR interview was made under oath, with the swearing parts presumably redacted from the beginning of the tape, along with her name and other identifying info.

The oath isn't redacted. It's 0:06-0:17 of the recording. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 24, 2013, 02:34:26 PM
When Judge Nelson ordered (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_LHB4Vz2Og&feature=youtu.be) the mini-deposition, she said 'You can have her at a court reporter's place of business. She can show her identification.' (29:08-14)

If that happened, there is now at least one person claiming to be W-8 who has been verified to have ID showing that she is 19.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on February 24, 2013, 03:03:26 PM
When Judge Nelson ordered (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_LHB4Vz2Og&feature=youtu.be) the mini-deposition, she said 'You can have her at a court reporter's place of business. She can show her identification.' (29:08-14)

If that happened, there is now at least one person claiming to be W-8 who has been verified to have ID showing that she is 19.

In the Motion to Compel (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/1112/motion_to_compel.pdf), West said W8 was 18 when she was interviewed by Crump. Obviously, if she's 19 now, she was also 18 on the night of the shooting.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on February 24, 2013, 03:11:17 PM
From a Rene Stutzman Tweet (https://twitter.com/renestutzman):

Quote
Feb 22

Rene Stutzman ‏@renestutzman
New #Zimmerman court paperwork: O'Mara asks judge for subpoena of wit8's med records. Wants to know if she really in hospital during funeral

This was mentioned on Friday on CTH. It hasn't, as far as I can see, shown up in any GZLegalCase documents yet.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 24, 2013, 03:33:23 PM
I don't think Dee Dee claimed to have missed the funeral. Crump asked if she missed the wake, and she said she did. De la Rionda asked her about the wake and the funeral in the same question, and her answer didn't clarify if she missed both events or only one of them.

To me de la Rionda doesn't sound as if he was asking about two events. It sounded more like he wasn't sure if the event she missed was the wake or the funeral. He also didn't seem to care. Once Dee Dee confirmed that she missed some event related to Trayvon's death, de la Rionda moved on without asking her to clarify.

In one of the hearings, O'Mara used the word 'service'. Is a wake considered a 'service'?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on February 24, 2013, 05:34:39 PM
In one of the hearings, O'Mara used the word 'service'. Is a wake considered a 'service'?
The word "wake" seems to have different meanings in different cultures.

I don't think an Irish "wake" is the same thing at all as a Southern U.S. "wake", and I think even in the Southern U.S., blacks might have a slightly different concept of the term than whites.

I've always heard these distinctions made among white Southerners:

1) First comes the "viewing" or "visitation", where you go to the funeral home (or in earlier times, to the deceased's home) to see the deceased lying in state; this is followed  a few days later by:

2) The "service" itself, where you go first to the church or funeral chapel to hear eulogies, etc., followed by the removal of the casket to the cemetary for:

3) The "graveside service" or "burial," where additional words are spoken, military rituals are observed, and the casket is lowered into the grave. Some people might attend both #2 and #3, or one but not the other. However, there's almost always someone who misses both and stays at the home of the deceased to prepare things for:

4) The "wake," in which people go to the home of the deceased and visit the mourners to console and reminisce. This can go on for hours, particularly if people have come in from out of town. Much food is brought and usually consumed more by visitors than the family of the deceased, who usually wind up throwing most of it out a few days later.

5) Sometimes there's a "memorial service" that follows all of this a few weeks to months later, but usually only if the deceased was well-known and/or wealthy. This is also more of a Northern thing, and in the South is usually subsituted for by a "remembrance" in the funeral announcements in the local paper.

I suppose Dee Dee could have attended the "service"-- whether this involved going to the cemetary or just the church/funeral home-- but became overly distraught and needed to go to the hospital rather than to whatever home people gathered at post-burial for the "wake".

I may be misremembering, but I believe the late, great stand-up comic Jackie "Moms" Mabley once defined a "wake" as "The best going-away party you ever get-- only you don't get to be there to enjoy it."



I'm glad to see O'Mara asking for a subpoena of Dee Dee's records, to determine when-- or if-- she was actually admitted to the hospital. Since there's been proven misrepresentation of her age, this request goes to establishing credibility of her testimony.

Since she has already voluntarily disclosed that she has high blood pressure and was being treated for problems related to that, I can't see where she can reasonably claim her privacy is being violated, especially if details of any other illness or treatment are not permitted to be publicly revealed.

But since it's Nelson, it'll probably be denied.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on February 24, 2013, 07:28:15 PM
The word "wake" seems to have different meanings in different cultures.

I don't think an Irish "wake" is the same thing at all as a Southern U.S. "wake", and I think even in the Southern U.S., blacks might have a slightly different concept of the term than whites.

I've always heard these distinctions made among white Southerners:

1) First comes the "viewing" or "visitation", where you go to the funeral home (or in earlier times, to the deceased's home) to see the deceased lying in state; this is followed  a few days later by:

2) The "service" itself, where you go first to the church or funeral chapel to hear eulogies, etc., followed by the removal of the casket to the cemetary for:

3) The "graveside service" or "burial," where additional words are spoken, military rituals are observed, and the casket is lowered into the grave. Some people might attend both #2 and #3, or one but not the other. However, there's almost always someone who misses both and stays at the home of the deceased to prepare things for:

4) The "wake," in which people go to the home of the deceased and visit the mourners to console and reminisce. This can go on for hours, particularly if people have come in from out of town. Much food is brought and usually consumed more by visitors than the family of the deceased, who usually wind up throwing most of it out a few days later.

5) Sometimes there's a "memorial service" that follows all of this a few weeks to months later, but usually only if the deceased was well-known and/or wealthy. This is also more of a Northern thing, and in the South is usually subsituted for by a "remembrance" in the funeral announcements in the local paper.

I suppose Dee Dee could have attended the "service"-- whether this involved going to the cemetary or just the church/funeral home-- but became overly distraught and needed to go to the hospital rather than to whatever home people gathered at post-burial for the "wake".

I may be misremembering, but I believe the late, great stand-up comic Jackie "Moms" Mabley once defined a "wake" as "The best going-away party you ever get-- only you don't get to be there to enjoy it."



I'm glad to see O'Mara asking for a subpoena of Dee Dee's records, to determine when-- or if-- she was actually admitted to the hospital. Since there's been proven misrepresentation of her age, this request goes to establishing credibility of her testimony.

Since she has already voluntarily disclosed that she has high blood pressure and was being treated for problems related to that, I can't see where she can reasonably claim her privacy is being violated, especially if details of any other illness or treatment are not permitted to be publicly revealed.

But since it's Nelson, it'll probably be denied.

I am from Texas and we are all about 1-4.   4 usually involves some considerable drinking, too.   ;)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on February 24, 2013, 07:29:12 PM
Does "he" refer to Crump or Gutman? If Crump, that is what Crump claimed (without saying whether any of his associates talked with her). If Gutman, Gutman says he talked to W8 several times, and one of the recordings he played is not from the Crump interview.

Sorry yes,  Crump.  I was in a hurry today.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on February 24, 2013, 09:06:02 PM
As in, he believed it because the young lady said it?

Wouldn't that put the cat among the pigeons if she did, but it turned out that she wasn't?

That would be my impression.  Crump said in his affidavit presented to the court that he needed W8's permission for her to do the interview.  He would not need that permission if she were 18.  I don't believe Crump ever mentioned her age other than saying she was a minor.  I am of the impression that Gutman being present at the Crump interview and conducting his own, believed she was 16.  From an interview Gutman did on MSNBC:

GUTMAN: Again, it was another contradiction of Zimmerman`s version
of events. For minutes it seemed Trayvon Martin knew he was being followed
by this unidentified person behind him. At one point he said there`s this
crazy white dude behind me. I don`t know why he`s following me.

And this continues. He tries to run, and then he walks. And then he
thinks he loses Zimmerman. And Zimmerman catches up to him. And then they
had this confrontation, Trayvon Martin asking Zimmerman, why are you
following me? Zimmerman responding, what are you doing here? And the next
thing that this 16-year-old girl says, Dee Dee, that she heard was a
scuffle. Trayvon`s treasured phone falls to the ground. She hears the
rustle in the grass, and then the phone cuts out.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on February 24, 2013, 09:14:37 PM
Footnote 2 of O'Mara's first  motion said Dee Dee was 18 at the time of the shooting, 18 when Crump interviewed her, and 18 when BDLR interviewed her. In their latest motion, they say she is 19 now.

The wake was the night before the funeral. They are all in agreement she missed the wake because she was ill, not the funeral. TM's cousin Ronquavis Fulton told Nancy Grace on April 2 he was introduced to her at the funeral.

Quote
GRACE: Ronquavis Fulton, I want to talk to you about Trayvon Martin. Do you know this girl he was talking to on the phone that evening?
FULTON: No, but I met her at the funeral.
GRACE: You did?
FULTON: Yes.
GRACE: Did you have any opportunity to talk to her?
FULTON: No, not personally. Just a meet -- just a formal meeting.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on February 24, 2013, 09:24:05 PM
BDLR's interview with W8 is not a deposition. Both sides are present for depositions. Depositions are conducted as part of discovery. Prosecution/law enforcement interviews are part of their investigation.

The deposition by O'Mara will not be public unless one side or the other introduces it as a trial exhibit. More likely, they would introduce just the relevant part, e.g., parts being used for impeachment.

BDLR's and Crump's interviews with W8 are also unlikely to be introduced at trial in their entirety. At trial, it will be her live testimony at trial that is evidence. One side or the other could then use particular statements she made during the interviews or deposition with O'Mara or her news interviews to impeach her.  The jury is unlikely to hear or see the entirety of any of her pre-trial interviews.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 24, 2013, 09:27:35 PM
The wake was the night before the funeral.

Source?

Quote
TM's cousin Ronquavis Fulton told Nancy Grace on April 2 he was introduced to her at the funeral.

Nancy didn't ask, and Ronquavis didn't say, how he knew the girl he met that night was the girl in question.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 24, 2013, 09:29:16 PM
My family are Tennessee and N. Carolina Methodists and Baptists. We do 1-3. A wake is a foreign idea to me, something in books and movies. I don't think anyone I know ever mentioned attending one.

I thought a wake was before the funeral, and some googling confirms that this is the tradition. It developed from the custom of keeping 24 hour watch over the body, hence 'wake'. It may have often been for the mundane purpose of watching for signs the person wasn't really dead, but it usually also involved beliefs about the afterlife, with prayers or songs to comfort the departed spirit or aid its journey.

Maybe the after funeral wake is a modern innovation?

Googling 'Trayvon Martin wake' turn up lots of titles where the word 'wake' means something else, like 'shooting a wake up call'.

I recall some press accounts without the word.

Reuters, April 3 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403)
Quote
The family held a viewing on Friday, March 2. The memorial service and interment were Saturday.

It may be only Crump and people taking a cue from him that use the word 'wake'.

When Crump suggested and Dee Dee confirmed that she missed the 'wake', did Crump know the date of the event he was talking about? Who told Crump that there was a wake and that Dee Dee missed it?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on February 24, 2013, 09:34:45 PM
I am still confused as to how it has been verified that the person on Crump's phone interview and the person BDLR interviewed in person were the same person.  Has the defense asked for this information?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on February 24, 2013, 09:44:52 PM
I am still confused as to how it has been verified that the person on Crump's phone interview and the person BDLR interviewed in person were the same person.  Has the defense asked for this information?

The defense has asked for her full name and address repeatedly.  The court said they can ask W8 these questions during their deposition. 

In Crumps affidavit, he says at the time he conducted the interview, he did not know W8's last name or her address, which I presume means he never asked before or during the interview (or maybe they were parts that were edited out from the copies the defense received).
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 24, 2013, 09:56:49 PM
I am still confused as to how it has been verified that the person on Crump's phone interview and the person BDLR interviewed in person were the same person. 

AFAIK it hasn't been verified. Crump says he didn't know who he was interviewing or who was with her. That leaves us with the girl de la Rionda interviewed saying Crump had interviewed her.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on February 24, 2013, 10:08:03 PM
I am still confused as to how it has been verified that the person on Crump's phone interview and the person BDLR interviewed in person were the same person.  Has the defense asked for this information?

The two DeeDee theory (D4?) is very popular at CTH, but as weird as the age discrepancy is, I find it almost impossible to believe that BDLR and the other prosecutors wouldn't discover the DeeDees are different women, or discover it and decide to commit a fraud on the court that would probably get them disbarred.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 24, 2013, 10:29:15 PM
The two DeeDee theory (D4?) is very popular at CTH, but as weird as the age discrepancy is, I find it almost impossible to believe that BDLR and the other prosecutors wouldn't discover the DeeDees are different women

I've been skeptical of multiple Dee Dee theories, but I think they have gotten a big credibility boost from Crump's affidavit.

What I find hard to believe, is that Crump would interview such an important witness without knowing who she was. That he claims to have seems like a deniability ploy. Maybe there is another explanation, but I don't think of one offhand.

De la Rionda didn't press any of the weaknesses in Dee Dee's story. I don't see why the prosecutors wouldn't take her claim to have been interviewed by Crump at face value.

Assuming the prosecutors did care to investigate telephone Dee Dee, how would they? She's just a voice on a telephone.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 24, 2013, 11:21:46 PM
I don't believe Crump ever mentioned her age other than saying she was a minor.

Video (http://www.today.com/id/46805726/site/todayshow/ns/today-today_news/t/trayvon-martins-parents-trust-friends-phone-call/#.USr-PGcgzlY) of Crump saying Dee Dee was 16 (1:37-43).

Sorry for the 30 second ad.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 24, 2013, 11:31:50 PM
I find it almost impossible to believe that BDLR and the other prosecutors wouldn't discover the DeeDees are different women

If the prosecutors investigated that, I think there would be some sign of it in the discovery. The way W-8 came to the attention of the authorities was unusual and mysterious, and I would say suspicious, but they don't seemed to have inquired into it.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on February 24, 2013, 11:37:13 PM
There is no evidence there are two W-8's. Please leave the conspiracy theories out of this unless there is evidence of it. It's distracting and doesn't belong here.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: whonoze on February 24, 2013, 11:58:16 PM
I am still confused as to how it has been verified that the person on Crump's phone interview and the person BDLR interviewed in person were the same person.

Just listen to the recordings. It's the same person. Same vocal tone, inflections, speech patterns, vocabulary, etc. etc. Same content, with only slight changes of wording. She even stumbles at the same point — to Crump: "Then somebody pushed... Somebody pushed Trayvon 'cause the headset just fell"; to BdlR: "You cou’ hear that Trayvon bump…. somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass."

I'd guess Crump was mistaken about her age because he had been misinformed by Sybrina Fulton, who probably didn't know and was guessing. Or perhaps Trayvon had told his mother she was 16 for some reason (??).

I can't recall the source off-hand, but I believe it was reported that DeeDee was at Sybrina Fulton's home when Crump conducted the telephone interview and Fulton was present. It's also clear to me from the way she fails to respond to many of Crump's questions that Crump did not 'coach' her, or have any significant contact with her prior to the phone interview. I do think elements of her statement are rehearsed and somewhat calculated — which does not necessarily make them false — but it seems to me that any 'spin' she put on her description was of her own making with the possible assistance of Ms. Fulton. DeeDee seems to frame everything in a way that makes things look the worst for GZ, while also protecting Trayvon's image, a perspective a lawyer would not encourage but a grieving mother would.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 12:32:34 AM
In Crumps affidavit, he says at the time he conducted the interview, he did not know W8's last name or her address, which I presume means he never asked before or during the interview (or maybe they were parts that were edited out from the copies the defense received).

Crump didn't ask for Dee Dee's name at the beginning of the recording. (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA1_red.mp3)

His first question:

Quote
We saw from the phone records you and Trayvon talked pretty much all day. Can you just walk me through the day, of how many times you talked to Trayvon that day, and what kind of state of mind he was in?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 12:36:07 AM
I can't recall the source off-hand, but I believe it was reported that DeeDee was at Sybrina Fulton's home when Crump conducted the telephone interview and Fulton was present.

Crump's affidavit (http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/crumpaffid8.pdf) says Sybrina Fulton was with him [p. 8].

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 12:46:26 AM
It's also clear to me from the way she fails to respond to many of Crump's questions that Crump did not 'coach' her

Examples?

I don't think Crump coached her personally. Deniability.

In the affidavit, Crump emphasized how little contact he had with Dee Dee himself. He didn't say anything about other members or employees of his law firm, or Julison's PR firm.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 12:51:33 AM
Same content, with only slight changes of wording.

The discrepancies between the interviews are not just changes of wording, much less 'slight' ones. This is as laughable as similar claims about Zimmerman's statements.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on February 25, 2013, 01:21:04 AM
I can't figure out what exactly happened in regard to Crump's DeeDee interview, but as little as I respect Crump's legal abilities, I don't think he'd go blind into an interview with a key witness in the presence of a TV reporter. It makes no sense.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 01:35:02 AM
There is no evidence there are two W-8's. Please leave the conspiracy theories out of this unless there is evidence of it.

As you wish.

I would still appreciate it if MJW, or anyone, would like to answer my question about how the prosecutors might go about verifying the identity of telephone Dee Dee if they wished to do so. Is that an acceptable topic?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on February 25, 2013, 01:46:11 AM
As you wish.

I would still appreciate it if MJW, or anyone, would like to answer my question about how the prosecutors might go about verifying the identity of telephone Dee Dee if they wished to do so. Is that an acceptable topic?

On the assumption I'm allowed to answer, I'd say the hospital records will prove it. The overnight hospital stay was mentioned in the Crump interview. What are the odds two different women would both go to the hospital on the night of Martin's wake?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 02:07:18 AM
On the assumption I'm allowed to answer, I'd say the hospital records will prove it. The overnight hospital stay was mentioned in the Crump interview. What are the odds two different women would both go to the hospital on the night of Martin's wake?

Thanks for the response.

I wouldn't call that proof. We don't know that telephone Dee Dee did go to the hospital.

I don't know that it has been established that there was a wake. No one but Crump seems to know anything about it. De la Rionda mentioned it because Crump did, and in the recordings Dee Dee only mentioned it in response to leading questions.

Re-reading Crump's affidavit, (http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/crumpaffid8.pdf) I stumbled on the answer to a question I asked earlier. Crump said that Dee Dee going to a hospital instead of the wake was something he 'determined' as part of the 'Preliminary Inquiry' (pp. 6-7). Presumably that means Dee Dee told him.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on February 25, 2013, 02:55:09 AM
I don't know that it has been established that there was a wake. No one but Crump seems to know anything about it. De la Rionda mentioned it because Crump did, and in the recordings Dee Dee only mentioned it in response to leading questions.

I'd say what was referred to as the "wake" might be the viewing (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403), which was held on Friday, March 2, the day before the funeral.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 03:01:33 AM
I'd say what was referred to as the "wake" might be the viewing (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403), which was held on Friday, March 2, the day before the funeral.

A reasonable speculation. As I said, not established.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DiwataMan on February 25, 2013, 03:11:41 AM
As you wish.

I would still appreciate it if MJW, or anyone, would like to answer my question about how the prosecutors might go about verifying the identity of telephone Dee Dee if they wished to do so. Is that an acceptable topic?

I would think it's very much an acceptable topic.

To start off I would think the first thing they would want is the phone she used that night. Even though she used a Simple Mobile prepaid card, which has no name attached to the account, it will still have the forensic evidence that would establish at least which tower(s) it was pinging off of.

What's funny though is the SAO didn't seek out this information until April, 2, the same day of her interview.

I don't understand why the State won't provide the defense with her address as they have already already given them addresses of other protected witnesses. And Bernie saying the State doesn't know where George lives is absurd. Maybe Bernie forgot George has been ordered to stay in Seminole county with a GPS locator attached.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 03:51:47 AM

If they had a really good wake, it might be that the only one who remembers it, is the one who wasn't there.

Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on February 25, 2013, 06:49:42 AM
Crump didn't ask for Dee Dee's name at the beginning of the recording. (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA1_red.mp3)

His first question:

Just to clarify, that is Crumps first question to her on the recording that has been made public, and we do not know what may have been discussed previously. 

Do we really believe a lawyer representing the parents of the deceased would conduct such an interview without knowing/finding out the name and address of the person who is about to become the key witness in a murder case? 

I'm on the fence on the two Dee Dee's theory and will refrain from any speculation.  I don't think its speculation to say that Crump and Gutman detailed after the Crump interview that the individual in the interview was 16 and it turns out the person BDLR interviewed was 18.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on February 25, 2013, 07:03:24 AM
I seem to remember the defense asking BDLR in court the sequence of events that caused him to interview Witness#8.  I assume that includes verifying she was the person on the phone with Trayvon Martin on the evening of 2/26/12.  Am I imagining this?  Was Bernie's reply to the effect it was none of the defense's business and he is legally correct?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on February 25, 2013, 07:08:35 AM
The discrepancies between the interviews are not just changes of wording, much less 'slight' ones. This is as laughable as similar claims about Zimmerman's statements.
Is there a post already listing differences between DeeDee's account in the two interviews?  If not, this would be a good time to post one.  TIA.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on February 25, 2013, 10:51:49 AM
In the recent hearing, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5GZVhgSyKrM) West said W-8 is 19, and was 18 when Crump first told the media that she was 16 (6:23).

Well, when West said it, Bernie sat there like the proverbial potted plant and didn't contradict him, so I guess that makes it official.

Which makes it official that Crump didn't do a very good job of finding out just who he was interviewing.

I wonder if all the slack the court is cutting Crump in this hearing is going to lead to flood of attorneys trying to jump into future cases ahead of the police and sew up evidence just in case it's useful down the road.

And I wonder how much protection of W8 and her identity there will be if they need her for the civil cases later on.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on February 25, 2013, 11:19:26 AM
Quote from: whonoze on February 24, 2013, 11:58:16 PM
Quote
Just listen to the recordings. It's the same person. Same vocal tone, inflections, speech patterns, vocabulary, etc. etc. Same content, with only slight changes of wording. She even stumbles at the same point — to Crump: "Then somebody pushed... Somebody pushed Trayvon 'cause the headset just fell"; to BdlR: "You cou’ hear that Trayvon bump…. somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass."
Quote from: nomatter_nevermind on Today at 12:51:33 AM
Quote
The discrepancies between the interviews are not just changes of wording, much less 'slight' ones. This is as laughable as similar claims about Zimmerman's statements.
Is there a post already listing differences between DeeDee's account in the two interviews?  If not, this would be a good time to post one.  TIA.
Agreed. Not to mention, is there a written transcript somewhere of Crump's interview with W8?

Because try as I might, I can't make out enough of what she says to figure out what answers she's giving to Crump's questions. Clearly whonoze and nm_nm have better ears than mine.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: Marilyn on February 25, 2013, 11:51:10 AM
http://is.gd/Y1fVZ2 is a link to Screamin' Jay's transcriptions, and Deedee is included.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: TalkLeft on February 25, 2013, 01:17:35 PM
As you wish. I would still appreciate it if MJW, or anyone, would like to answer my question about how the prosecutors might go about verifying the identity of telephone Dee Dee if they wished to do so. Is that an acceptable topic?

Yes that's fine. I just don't want speculative theories that involve wrongdoing or unethical conduct by lawyers here. Or any attempts to identify Dee Dee.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 02:22:15 PM
http://is.gd/Y1fVZ2 is a link to Screamin' Jay's transcriptions, and Deedee is included.

Sorry to say, I wouldn't expect a transcript from that source to be reliable.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on February 25, 2013, 02:35:28 PM
I've come to the conclusion that the only way the prosecution could have DeeDee testify in court is to just ask her questions that can be answered yes or no.  Would that be legal?
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on February 25, 2013, 02:43:29 PM
I've come to the conclusion that the only way the prosecution could have DeeDee testify in court is to just ask her questions that can be answered yes or no.  Would that be legal?

That would almost certainly be leading the witness, which the prosecution can't do to its own witnesses (except in the rare cases where the judge declares the witness to be hostile). Even if they somehow could, I doubt the defense will be so accommodating.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 03:38:54 PM
Clearly whonoze and nm_nm have better ears than mine.

There are parts of the recording where much of what Dee Dee said is intelligible, particularly the third segment. (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA3_red.mp3)

That's what I've been talking about, and I assume Whonoze also.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 25, 2013, 03:42:55 PM

Is there a post already listing differences between DeeDee's account in the two interviews? 

That's been on my 'to do' list'. Since interest has been expressed, I'll get right on it.

Meanwhile, you might be interested in this. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg101881.html#msg101881) It had another purpose, but it mentions some of the differences between the 4/2 SAO interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) and Crump's paraphrase (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html) of the 3/19 interview. Also this (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2052.msg96001.html#msg96001) (in which, sorry, I wrongly put the 4/2 interview on 4/3).
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: MJW on February 25, 2013, 05:33:25 PM
Sorry to say, I wouldn't expect a transcript from that source to be reliable.

Screamin' Jay certainly does have a particular point of view, but as I recall, the witness interview summaries he did were generally quite good. Maybe when I get a chance I'll listen again to the Crump interview, using Jay's transcript as a guide, and see where I agree or disagree.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on February 25, 2013, 05:33:54 PM
That would almost certainly be leading the witness, which the prosecution can't do to its own witnesses (except in the rare cases where the judge declares the witness to be hostile). Even if they somehow could, I doubt the defense will be so accommodating.
Would the Florida rules allow the prosecution to assign a coach to DeeDee to practice questions and answers for a couple of months?  Grammar and diction too?   :D
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 26, 2013, 08:39:54 AM
This turned out to be longer than I expected, so I'm splitting it into four posts. The first covers Parts 1 and 2 of Crump's 3/19 interview of Dee Dee. The second and third cover Part 3, which has the most intelligible material. The fourth briefly covers Parts 4-7, and some remaining points in the 4/2 SAO interview that aren't mentioned in the 3/19 recording.

For convenience I'm putting links to the main references at the beginning of the first post.

Recording (http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/78-11th-supplemental-discovery) of 3/19 interview of W-8 by Crump.

Part 1 (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA1_red.mp3)

Part 2 (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA2_red.mp3)

Part 3 (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA3_red.mp3)

Part 4 (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA4_red.mp3)

Part 5 (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA5_red.mp3)

Part 6 (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA6_red.mp3)

Part 7 (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA7_red.mp3)

4/2 SAO interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu)

Crump's 3/20 paraphrase (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html) of the 3/19 interview.

DiwataMan's page, (http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/interview-of-w8-comparison/#more-1695) with ABC clips and other early audio of Dee Dee.

Summary of Dee Dee's SAO interview, including the unrecorded part, 36/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)


Part 1

Crump asked some leading questions, suggesting it was about six o'clock when Trayvon went to the store.

I think I can hear Dee Dee say 'What was that?', apparently because she didn't understand a question. Except for that, only fragments of sentences are intelligible on her side.


Part 2

Quote
At six something, he went to the corner store [unintelligible] his little brother, candy and an Arizona [unintelligible]. He told me [unintelligible] didn't have nothing to drink over there.

Parenthentically, I've often wondered if there is any corroborating evidence that Martin was in the habit of calling Chad his 'little brother' when talking to his friends.

The 'nothing to drink' observation is not in the 4/2 SAO interview.

I've never believed that Trayvon walked nearly two miles just to fetch goodies for Chad. I wouldn't believe it if Chad was really his brother, and it's inconsistent with statements (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2132.msg105575.html#msg105575) of Chad himself and Brandy.

If there was 'nothing to drink over there', it seems even less likely that Trayvon wouldn't get something for himself. I would have gotten a three liter bottle of cola.

Why didn't Chad ever mention the beverage, and only say he asked for Skittles? 

It's a shame the word after 'Arizona' isn't intelligible. I'd like to know if Dee Dee knew the beverage was a fruit drink, not 'tea'.

At this point in the 4/2 SAO interview, Dee Dee said the items for 'his little brother' were 'some food, and some drink' (4:29-37). Later in the interview, de la Rionda asked her to confirm that previously she had said 'iced tea', which she did. (19:32-43). That may refer to the early part of the interview, which was neither recorded nor sworn. However, the summary (36/284) just says 'a drink and candy'.

Quote
He said it was gonna [unintelligible] about to rain, so he [unintelligible] going to the corner store. And he walked back. And it started raining. [Unintelligible] that little apartment [unintelligible]. Because the rain was [unintelligible] hard. Raining hard. [Unintelligible.]

It was after this that Dee Dee said that Trayvon reported a man looking at him. The quoted passage seems to correspond to the part of the 4/2 SAO interview in which Trayvon was said to take shelter at a 'mail thing' that was 'like a shed' (5:33-49).

The word 'mail' is not to be found among the intelligible parts of the 3/19 recording. Nor is it in Crump's 3/20 summary, where, interestingly, Martin's place of shelter was described as an 'apartment building'. To the best of my knowledge, the word 'mail' was not used in connection with Martin's place of shelter in any other Crump statement, or the ABC coverage, or anywhere until the 4/2 SAO interview.

The 'apartment buildings' of RATL offer little in the way of shelter, except for the covered patios at the front and back doors, where a lurker might disturb or alarm a resident or neighbor.

I think I see a pattern here. The evolution of Zimmerman's story seems calculated to put his actions in a better light. The changes in Dee Dee's story don't put Martin in a better light, or Zimmerman in a worse one. They just make the story more plausible.

De la Rionda asked more questions than Crump, and his questions were the source of a number of differences between the two interviews. At this point he asked if the 'mail thing' was inside 'the gated place'. Dee Dee confirmed that it was, and said Trayvon 'ran in there'. (5:49-53)

The gate is another thing not mentioned in the intelligible parts of the 3/19 recording, or Crump's 3/20 summary. Crump did mention it in at least one interview, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg103545.html#msg103545) on 3/21/12.

In the 4/2 SAO interview, Dee Dee mentioned the phone call dropping about the time Trayvon found shelter from the rain. This isn't in the recording of the 3/19 interview. It may be lost in the unintelligible parts, or it may not be there.

Quote
And then, he said this man was like, this man was like looking at him, like he's doing something. So, he told me he put his hoodie on, because it was still raining a little bit.

The 4/2 SAO interview has nothing corresponding to 'like he's doing something'.

De la Rionda asked some questions at this point, eliciting that Trayvon told Dee Dee that the man was white, in a car, and on the phone. (6:24-39)

Dee Dee mentioned Zimmerman's complexion later in the Crump interview. Also later in the interview, Crump would mention the car as if Dee Dee had brought it up earlier. This must have been during an unintelligible or unrecorded part of the interview. Zimmerman's phone doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the 3/19 interview.

In the 4/2 SAO interview, Trayvon left his shelter and started walking, and then the phone call dropped and reconnected, and Trayvon told Dee Dee the man was 'following him, behind the car' (6:43-7:05). All this was before Trayvon told Dee Dee about raising his hood (7:06-18). It's all missing from the 3/19 interview.

There is a transcription issue with the 'hoodie' part of the 4/2 SAO interview.

Some transcripts have 'still a little bit dripping water'. Others have 'starting a little bit dripping water'. I agree with the first, so here I see no difference between the two interviews. But some disagree, so I've included it.

There is a difference with a dramatic ABC clip (0:02-5 on this DiwataMan video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w-JFece_-RQ))

Quote
He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on.

This clip puts the man watching and the hoodie raising in the same sentence, and makes one the reason for the other. It doesn't fit into this part of Crump's 3/19 interview. It may be from a separate Gutman interview, or another part of Crump's interview that covered the same ground.

Back to the 3/19 recording.

Quote
And he say he gonna run around [unintelligible] the back, because this man was watching him and stuff.

Did Dee Dee say Trayvon was going to 'run around from the back', using the same idiom as in the 4/2 SAO interview (7:20-27)? Or did she say 'run around to the back'? Or maybe 'in the back'? I can't tell.

In the 4/2 SAO interview, Dee Dee said that after Trayvon told her he was 'about to run from the back', she told him to 'run to his dad's house'. Trayvon repeated that he was going to 'run from the back', with the explanation that it was 'more easier'. (7:20-40)

The 3/19 recording has no such conversation.

Crump's 3/20 paraphrase says, at this point, 'And she tells him, baby, be careful, just run home.'  So it may be in the unintelligible or unrecorded part of the 3/19 interview.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 26, 2013, 08:40:08 AM
Part 3

Part 3 begins 'Trayvon had run for it.' At the end of Part 2, he had said he was going to run.

In the 4/2 SAO interview, Dee Dee described hearing Trayvon run (7:35-45). 'And I could hear that the wind blowing'. Nothing like that is intelligible on the 3/19 recording.

Quote
And then the man, and then, he say he lost the man. And then, the man come. And then Trayvon say, the man still was following him.

These three sentences correspond to about a minute and a half of the 4/2 SAO interview (7:49-9:27).

The 3/19 recording has no details about the period during which Martin thought he had lost Zimmerman. Crump's 3/20 paraphrase says only that Trayvon was walking.

In the 4/2 SAO interview, Dee Dee said Trayvon was scared at that time, that he was breathing hard and his voice was 'kinda low'. She said they had another discussion about whether Martin would run.

I'm going to dwell on this for a bit, because I know it's confusing. In the 4/2 SAO interview, Dee Dee described three separate occasions on which she urged Trayvon to run home, or just to run. The first was after the phones reconnected, and Trayvon 'put his hoodie on', and said the man was watching him from a car. That is when Dee Dee told Trayvon to 'run to his dad's house', and Trayvon said he would 'run from the back'. (7:20-40)

As mentioned above, this corresponds to a point in the 3/19 interview, when Trayvon said he would run. Dee Dee didn't describe any back and forth between them at that point in the interview.

Also as mentioned, the corresponding part of Crump's 3/20 paraphrase has Dee Dee telling Trayvon to 'run home'.

The second episode in the 4/2 SAO interview, was after Trayvon said he lost the man, and before he said that he could see the man again. It was before the 'couple of minutes', which is not heard of on the 3/19 recording. This time Martin refused to run, saying he was 'right by his father's house'. (8:44-9:20) There is not a word of this on the 3/19 recording, in which Trayvon lost the man in one sentence, and saw him again in the next. It is also not mentioned in Crump's 3/20 paraphrase.

The third episode was after the 'couple of minutes'. (9:21-10:27) It corresponds to the first and only such discussion on the 3/19 recording. It is reflected in Crump's 3/20 paraphrase.

Recapitulating, Dee Dee urged Martin to run home, or just to run, once in the 3/19 recording, twice in Crump's 3/20 paraphrase, and three times in the 4/2 SAO interview.

There is some discussion of Crump's 3/20 paraphrase and the 4/2 SAO interview in my earlier post. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg101881.html#msg101881)

I've gotten a bit ahead of the narrative, so I'll go back and pick it up again at the point where Trayvon told Dee Dee that he thought he had lost the man. In the 4/2 SAO interview, Dee Dee at that time concluded that Trayvon was scared. Trayvon 'started walking back again', and Dee Dee told him to 'keep running to his daddy's house'. Trayvon answered that he wouldn't run, because he was 'right by his father's house'. After 'a couple of minutes', uneventful in Dee Dee's narrative, Trayvon reported that the man was following him 'again'. (7:49-9:27)

Of the events in the last paragraph, only the first and the last are reflected in the 3/19 interview. Trayvon 'lost the man'. In the next sentence, the man was back. In the next sentence after that, 'the man still was following him.'

The 'couple of minutes', to me looks like another concession to reality, for the sake of plausibility. In this case, it is the realities of the timeline.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on February 26, 2013, 09:18:15 AM
^^^You must have the ears of a bat... and the patience of a saint.  I only tried listening once and I was done after a couple of minutes.  That is a really balanced comparison between the interviews.  You are the Bestest Ever!


...even with some of your more **ahem** enduring traits that often make me crazy.
  ;)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: RickyJim on February 26, 2013, 09:36:36 AM
^^^You must have the ears of a bat... and the patience of a saint.  I only tried listening once and I was done after a couple of minutes.  That is a really balanced comparison between the interviews.  You are the Bestest Ever!


...even with some of your more **ahem** enduring traits that often make me crazy.
  ;)
I keep raising the point that while somebody of NMNM's energy and patience can get through her statements, how can they possibly be presented to a jury?  The key part is the supposed catching up to Martin by Zimmerman and whether that can be shown to be consistent with the other evidence.  If somehow, the prosecution could only present that part, well rehearsed, and leave the defense to wade through the confusion the will be caused by going into the rest, then maybe they can use her effectively. 
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 26, 2013, 10:08:37 AM
Continuing with Part 3 of Crump's 3/19 interview of Dee Dee.

As previously mentioned, after the 'couple of minutes' in the 4/2 SAO interview, Trayvon told Dee Dee the man was following him 'again' (9:21-27). Dee Dee again suggested that Trayvon run (9:29-33). The corresponding sentence in the 3/19 recording is only partially intelligible, so I will pick up with the next one.

Quote
And Trayvon said, he ain't gonna run like that. He was gonna walk fast, from the back.

The 'walk fast' line is nowhere in the 4/2 SAO interview. There is no mention of anyone walking fast.

In the 4/2 SAO interview, Trayvon on this occasion gave no explanation for why he wouldn't run. Instead, Dee Dee gave her own opinion, that Trayvon wouldn't run because he was 'out of breath' (9:29-36), and 'tired' (9:52-57). Dee Dee said she could tell Trayvon was tired because he was 'breathing hard' (9:58-10:08). 

The corresponding sentences in the 3/19 recording are only partially intelligible, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of Trayvon being tired or out of breath. Dee Dee repeated that Trayvon was walking fast, adding that the man was also walking fast, and maybe that he was walking faster than Trayvon and closing the distance.

At this point, de la Rionda decided, for reasons not obvious, that it was a good time to ask Dee Dee if she could tell if it was raining. She answered that it was not, confidently and somewhat emphatically. (10:09-16) The weather isn't mentioned around this time on the 3/19 recording.

In the 3/19 interview, Dee Dee said that she knew Trayvon was 'pushed' because 'the headset just fell'. She didn't explain how she knew that the headset fell.

In the 4/2 SAO interview, Dee Dee said that she knew Trayvon was 'bumped', because she heard the bump directly, and also because she could hear the grass (11:23-42). She said something about the headphones that I don't understand. (12:15-37)

Quote
De la Rionda: OK. And, when you heard that noise, something hitting somebody, you did, did you hear the man say anything, or did you hear Trayvon say anything?

Dee Dee: I can hear a little bit.

De la Rionda: OK. What could you hear?

Dee Dee: I could of just hear, like, like, it's like, the headphones, because of the headphones, he might got off.

On the 3/19 recording, Dee Dee's account of the dialogue between the two men is only partially intelligible. Crump asked her to confirm what he understood to be the last thing she heard before the phones disconnected for the last time.

Quote
Crump: After the phone went dead, the last thing you heard was, he asked Trayvon again what he was doing there?
Dee Dee: 'What are you doing around here?'

In the 4/2 SAO interview, Dee Dee only indicated she heard that question once. She said that the last thing she heard was the bump. After de la Rionda coaxed her, she said she also heard, perhaps simultaneously with the bump, Trayvon say 'Get off', or 'Get off, get off'. (10:53-13:12)

'Get off' is another thing not intelligible on the 3/19 recording, and as far as I know not heard of anywhere before the 4/2 SAO interview.

With the narrative complete, Crump asked some follow-up questions. Dee Dee's answers are mostly unintelligible in this part of the recording.

Dee Dee said Trayvon described the man following him as 'this big white dude.' She didn't mention the man's size in the 4/2 SAO interview.

Crump alluded to Trayvon being followed by a man in a car, which is not intelligible elsewhere on the recording.

Quote
Crump: So at some point, when he was following him in the car, and Trayvon was trying to see who this guy was following him in the car, apparently, the, the Zimmerman man was on the phone with the police.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: unitron on February 26, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
^^^You must have the ears of a bat... and the patience of a saint.  I only tried listening once and I was done after a couple of minutes.  That is a really balanced comparison between the interviews.  You are the Bestest Ever!


...even with some of your more **ahem** enduring traits that often make me crazy.
  ;)

Enduring, but not "endearing"?   :)
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: leftwig on February 26, 2013, 11:31:17 AM
I keep raising the point that while somebody of NMNM's energy and patience can get through her statements, how can they possibly be presented to a jury?  The key part is the supposed catching up to Martin by Zimmerman and whether that can be shown to be consistent with the other evidence.  If somehow, the prosecution could only present that part, well rehearsed, and leave the defense to wade through the confusion the will be caused by going into the rest, then maybe they can use her effectively.

I agree (and thanks NMNM for doing that analysis).  I think this is the reason the grand jury was called off.  They knew she was a bad witness, but got some things in her statement to use in the APC.  Most of the information gleaned from her came from leading questions by friendly interviewers.  I can't imagine what she'd say during a deposition or cross examination by opposing counsel. 

I think with a few of Dee Dee's statements and overcharging, the prosecution hoped they could get GZ to plead to a lesser charge.  I don't see that they would risk using her at trial and would rather take a shot at winning on a lesser charge without using her.  OF course without her, I don't know what evidence they would present.   About all they have is some family saying it was TM screaming and attacking GZ's inconsistencies.  I doubt that GZ would testify at trial if Dee Dee doesn't.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 26, 2013, 11:40:50 AM
Continuing with Crump's 3/19 interview of Dee Dee.

Part 4 has nothing intelligible.

Part 5 has no intelligible sentences. Dee Dee says 'racial', and 'just because he had a hoodie on'.

Part 6 is mostly Crump wrapping up the interview. He suggested Dee Dee might go on TV with her face obscured, which of course never happened. He asked Dee Dee about missing the wake. Her answer is mostly unintelligible, but I think she said 'I thought there was a fight'.

Part 7 goes on about Dee Dee missing the wake. She is mostly unintelligible, but she confirmed that she was in a hospital overnight.

Part 7 is the last. The remainder of the post will wrap up some loose ends.

De la Rionda's post-narrative follow up questions elicited some information that might be expected to appear in the intelligible parts of the 3/19 recording, but does not.

Dee Dee said Trayvon was 'trying to rush' to 'finish watching the game' (19:53-20:09).

Dee Dee said that before Trayvon ran, he told her the man looked 'crazy' and 'creepy' (15:50-16:48).

Dee Dee said she believed the man was also tired (14:12-21). The 3/19 interview doesn't seem to mention Trayvon or Zimmerman being tired. It has both of them 'walking fast'.

In Part 3 of 3/19, Crump asked about Martin's mood earlier in the day, and Dee Dee said he 'sounded happy'.

De la Rionda asked Dee Dee to describe Martin. She said he was a 'momma' boy' and 'baby', who 'love his family' and 'would never fight' (20:25-40, 20:52-53, 22:08-9).

The 4/2 SAO interview is remarkable for 'you want that too', in which Dee Dee seems to have openly invited coaching. (14:31-15:42, transcript. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.450.html))

Dee Dee wouldn't give a straight answer to de la Rionda's question 'Did Trayvon say the guy's coming at me, he's going to hit me?' (15:50-16:16) To me that is a clear sign of bias. I believe it is just the sort of thing that jurors look for.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: whonoze on February 26, 2013, 04:07:40 PM
Crump alluded to Trayvon being followed by a man in a car, which is not intelligible elsewhere on the recording.

From Screamin' Jay's transcript (the timestamps reference the complete audio file, not the segmented version):

Quote
Crump:  So, at some point when he was following him in the car, and Trayvon was trying to see who this guy 09:02 was following in the car, apparently the Zimmerman man was on the phone with the police. And so, between that call and your call we pretty much have a lot of 09:15 audio of what took place.

DeeDee:  he knew 09:28 that he was on the phone to somebody so he was about to make a run for it from the back. cause somebody was following him very close 09:41 with the car.

Both Crump and DeeDee appear to be referencing something DeeDee said earlier about the car. This would likely have been during the part of the interview where Crump failed to put his voice recorder into RECORD, thus missing a good chunk of what DeeDee said. I believe ABC's recording did capture the whole interview, though, so if ABC turns over their copy we should not only be able to hear this part of the interview, but other parts that are utterly unintelligible in Crump's version should be clear enough to make out as well.
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: DebFrmHell on February 26, 2013, 04:46:59 PM
Enduring, but not "endearing"?   :)
:o
I got that one wrong.  LOL!  I have no idea why I went with enduring.  I must be more Freudian than I am willing to admit.

Who ((hearts)) you, baby?   :D
Title: Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
Post by: whonoze on February 27, 2013, 01:29:41 AM
The 4/2 SAO interview is remarkable for 'you want that too', in which Dee Dee seems to have openly invited coaching. (14:31-15:42, transcript. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.450.html))

Dee Dee wouldn't give a straight answer to de la Rionda's question 'Did Trayvon say the guy's coming at me, he's going to hit me?' (15:50-16:16) To me that is a clear sign of bias. I believe it is just the sort of thing that jurors look for.

The BdlR interview is more remarkable for DeeDee's response to 'Did Trayvon say the guy's coming at me, he's going to hit me?' She replies softly and hesitantly, 'Yeah, you could say that.' This is less an invitation for coaching than a disclosure of a willingness to commit a bit of perjury if it will help the prosecution. I would argue that it is exactly that sequence that indicates DeeDee was NOT 'coached' by Benjamin Crump or by anyone else who knows anything about the law. Any such individual would know that an an affirmative answer here is not necessary to making the case against Zimmerman, and would also have warned DeeDee away from making stuff up, or appearing to make stuff up. She shoul